What do you think?
Rate this book
THE SACRED PROJECT OF AMERICAN SOCIOLOGY
Counter to popular perceptions, contemporary American sociology is and promotes a profoundly sacred project at heart. Sociology today is in fact animated by sacred impulses, driven by sacred commitments, and serves a sacred project.
Sociology appears on the surface to be a secular, scientific enterprise--its founding fathers were mostly atheists. Its basic operating premises are secular and naturalistic. Sociologists today are disproportionately not religious, compared to all Americans, and often irreligious.
The Sacred Project of American Sociology shows, counter-intuitively, that the secular enterprise that everyday sociology appears to be pursuing is actually not what is really going on at sociology's deepest level. Christian Smith conducts a self-reflexive, tables-turning, cultural and institutional sociology of the profession of American sociology itself, showing that this allegedly secular discipline ironically expresses Emile Durkheim's inescapable sacred, exemplifies its own versions of Marxist false consciousness, and generates a spirited reaction against Max Weber's melancholically observed disenchantment of the world.
American sociology does not escape the analytical net that it casts over the rest of the ordinary world. Sociology itself is a part of that very human, very social, often very sacred and spiritual world. And sociology's ironic mis-recognition of its own sacred project leads to a variety of arguably self-destructive and distorting tendencies. This book re-asserts a vision for what sociology is most important for, in contrast with its current commitments, and calls sociologists back to a more honest, fair, and healthy vision of its purpose.
Sociology appears on the surface to be a secular, scientific enterprise--its founding fathers were mostly atheists. Its basic operating premises are secular and naturalistic. Sociologists today are disproportionately not religious, compared to all Americans, and often irreligious.
The Sacred Project of American Sociology shows, counter-intuitively, that the secular enterprise that everyday sociology appears to be pursuing is actually not what is really going on at sociology's deepest level. Christian Smith conducts a self-reflexive, tables-turning, cultural and institutional sociology of the profession of American sociology itself, showing that this allegedly secular discipline ironically expresses Emile Durkheim's inescapable sacred, exemplifies its own versions of Marxist false consciousness, and generates a spirited reaction against Max Weber's melancholically observed disenchantment of the world.
American sociology does not escape the analytical net that it casts over the rest of the ordinary world. Sociology itself is a part of that very human, very social, often very sacred and spiritual world. And sociology's ironic mis-recognition of its own sacred project leads to a variety of arguably self-destructive and distorting tendencies. This book re-asserts a vision for what sociology is most important for, in contrast with its current commitments, and calls sociologists back to a more honest, fair, and healthy vision of its purpose.
- GenresSociologyNonfiction
226 pages, Hardcover
First published July 3, 2014
8 people are currently reading
121 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 8, 2021
It feels like Smith wrote this book in a fever of inspired frustration. Its an exceptional book for someone like me who has three degrees in sociology. There was an "aha" as I read that explained so much of my experience at conferences and book tables. But I studied mostly in Canada.
Basically, Smith contends that American sociology has a "sacred project"--a religious orientation--that is neither acknowledged nor in some cases even recognized. The sacred project in a nutshell is to cast aspersions on the profane influence of "society" and institutions have on the normatively free and sacred individual, whose unfettered desires must not be encumbered, as long as they don't harm any other individual in their quest. There is a social constructionism at the heart of this project and it denies any structured reality to which our social constructions are best aligned. It eschews tradition, religion, and hierarchy. Although much of this aligns with a liberal capitalist worldview as well as a liberal socialist spin, the project considers all social and political conservatives an anathema.
Smith says he's aligned with some of the project's values, but the tragedy is that sociology masquerades as an objective, secular science when it is in fact a sacred project. It deceives itself and its students. While touting diversity and equality, it keeps a diversity of perspectives and politics outside its orthodox boundaries, and is becoming predictable, insecure, and a danger to itself and individuals who may offer alternative perspectives. Its all tragically ironic.
The longest chapter is on evidence for his argument, and he combs journals, conferences, books, and networks to make his point. Most telling is the extreme example of Dr. Mark Regnerus, who published some results from a project he did on the performance of children of gay parents. Its irrational and atrocious how he was maligned and mistreated, and this and similar incidents demonstrate why anyone who doesn't sing the sacred project's song will feel alienated from the core of the discipline.
Let me say I have felt that sense of alienation even though my experience was relatively pretty good in the public academy. My PhD was in Religious Studies, which can propound a very similar sacred project, but again, my experience in my doctoral department was actually mostly pleasant. Canadian graduate schools are less polarized, generally speaking. Maybe, too, Religious Studies was a more open space to do research, as Smith says sociology has a rigid and negative perspective on religion.
The state of the discipline is one thing, but how one feels about the discipline personally is also a matter of what you read. I read Peter Berger, Erving Goffman, Max Weber, and Christian Smith. They are the scholars that kept me interested in the discipline and moving deeper into research. Here is a key pivot point: my intro to the discipline was Berger's Invitation to Sociology. It was challenging, imaginative, and a little troubling. But promising, and it recognized disciplinary limits. The intro textbooks that Smith examines in this book would have turned me off; they suggest such a narrow perspective of the discipline that all conservatives would drop the course, and all the like-minded activists would dominate the discussions. The rest who were taking it as an elective would lower their heads and try to cruise through the course, nodding at the right time so as not to get intimidated by classmates or the professor. The textbooks are soaked in ideology and betray not only the founders of sociology, but also the dialogical nature of the academy.
The irony is put most starkly in this way: sociologists don't recognize their own Durkheimian sacred. As Berger said, they don't turn their social constructionism on themselves, or if they do, life is reduced to nihilistic power struggles, which makes for lousy dialogue and cooperation.
A final comment: this is American sociology. My experience was mostly in Canada, although the bulk of research comes out of the USA. There is something more polarized about the US, and that's its tragic political situation, exacerbated of late. Peter Berger wrote "Sociology: A Disinvitation?" in the late 1990s, as he saw the wheels already turning towards ideological calcification. I don't know if the juggernaut can be deconstructed anymore. It is almost as if it needs to destroy itself first in order to make room for something more imaginative, diverse and sustainable.
Smith gives the example of "personalism" as an alternative, a view that includes the idea that there are no real individuals. We are all interconnected, and that is not necessarily an imprisonment, but empowerment, too. I found symbolic interactionism to have openings for other perspectives, but that is certainly a minority in the discipline and often gets combined with the ideological component.
Time will tell. But for now, it seems to be an in-group talking to themselves with one normative political paradigm guarding the borders. At least in American circles.
Basically, Smith contends that American sociology has a "sacred project"--a religious orientation--that is neither acknowledged nor in some cases even recognized. The sacred project in a nutshell is to cast aspersions on the profane influence of "society" and institutions have on the normatively free and sacred individual, whose unfettered desires must not be encumbered, as long as they don't harm any other individual in their quest. There is a social constructionism at the heart of this project and it denies any structured reality to which our social constructions are best aligned. It eschews tradition, religion, and hierarchy. Although much of this aligns with a liberal capitalist worldview as well as a liberal socialist spin, the project considers all social and political conservatives an anathema.
Smith says he's aligned with some of the project's values, but the tragedy is that sociology masquerades as an objective, secular science when it is in fact a sacred project. It deceives itself and its students. While touting diversity and equality, it keeps a diversity of perspectives and politics outside its orthodox boundaries, and is becoming predictable, insecure, and a danger to itself and individuals who may offer alternative perspectives. Its all tragically ironic.
The longest chapter is on evidence for his argument, and he combs journals, conferences, books, and networks to make his point. Most telling is the extreme example of Dr. Mark Regnerus, who published some results from a project he did on the performance of children of gay parents. Its irrational and atrocious how he was maligned and mistreated, and this and similar incidents demonstrate why anyone who doesn't sing the sacred project's song will feel alienated from the core of the discipline.
Let me say I have felt that sense of alienation even though my experience was relatively pretty good in the public academy. My PhD was in Religious Studies, which can propound a very similar sacred project, but again, my experience in my doctoral department was actually mostly pleasant. Canadian graduate schools are less polarized, generally speaking. Maybe, too, Religious Studies was a more open space to do research, as Smith says sociology has a rigid and negative perspective on religion.
The state of the discipline is one thing, but how one feels about the discipline personally is also a matter of what you read. I read Peter Berger, Erving Goffman, Max Weber, and Christian Smith. They are the scholars that kept me interested in the discipline and moving deeper into research. Here is a key pivot point: my intro to the discipline was Berger's Invitation to Sociology. It was challenging, imaginative, and a little troubling. But promising, and it recognized disciplinary limits. The intro textbooks that Smith examines in this book would have turned me off; they suggest such a narrow perspective of the discipline that all conservatives would drop the course, and all the like-minded activists would dominate the discussions. The rest who were taking it as an elective would lower their heads and try to cruise through the course, nodding at the right time so as not to get intimidated by classmates or the professor. The textbooks are soaked in ideology and betray not only the founders of sociology, but also the dialogical nature of the academy.
The irony is put most starkly in this way: sociologists don't recognize their own Durkheimian sacred. As Berger said, they don't turn their social constructionism on themselves, or if they do, life is reduced to nihilistic power struggles, which makes for lousy dialogue and cooperation.
A final comment: this is American sociology. My experience was mostly in Canada, although the bulk of research comes out of the USA. There is something more polarized about the US, and that's its tragic political situation, exacerbated of late. Peter Berger wrote "Sociology: A Disinvitation?" in the late 1990s, as he saw the wheels already turning towards ideological calcification. I don't know if the juggernaut can be deconstructed anymore. It is almost as if it needs to destroy itself first in order to make room for something more imaginative, diverse and sustainable.
Smith gives the example of "personalism" as an alternative, a view that includes the idea that there are no real individuals. We are all interconnected, and that is not necessarily an imprisonment, but empowerment, too. I found symbolic interactionism to have openings for other perspectives, but that is certainly a minority in the discipline and often gets combined with the ideological component.
Time will tell. But for now, it seems to be an in-group talking to themselves with one normative political paradigm guarding the borders. At least in American circles.
January 6, 2021
Goodreads keeps not saying my reviews! I keep rewriting things here! This is getting on my nerves as I need to rewrite my reviews after it changes them back to an old draft... man... damn this is irritating and a huge waste of time.
--------
I'm a hyper critical thinker so a book from a sociologist criticising his own field is just up my alley. I like people who can question the world around them if it becomes unfair and unscientific. And from outside it's clear that sociology doesn't follow the scientific method. But why is that?
Biases:
He studies religion but at no point in the book does it seem like he is a theist. In reality he doesn't even seem like an atypical sociologist besides being able to understand his own field in some parts. So he seems liberal/left-leaning but not overly biased in most areas. But at the end he reveals himself as a personalitist so he is kinda an old school liberal according to himself.
His huge bias is that he seems to think that science is discussion. So everything is a talk with loose to no evidence. This is typical of the field itself too. Unfortunately he never once shows any ability to see beyond the single study and explain why it's wrong or why the thinking in it is a fallacy. So basically he is way too lenient. He's gullible to a fault. It's not a directional bias it just reveals weak critical thinking on some points. He is still more critical than 99% of people in his field. Just not as critical as me or anyone I respect in the scientific community. But it's a great thing that I am unable to place him politically! Anyone who has read sociology and sociology textbooks know how rare that happens in the field. Most I read are clearly left-wing ideology.
Review:
I. The Argument
I.b The Project
II. Evidence
III. Spiritual Practices
IV. How Did We Get Here?-The Short Story
V. Consequences
VI. The Question of Accountability
VII. What is Sociology Good For?
1st chapter is the argument. A non scientific intro to the hypothesis that sociology is a pseudoreligion. Very short and engaging chapter that is low on evidence though.
2nd chapter is evidence. But not evidence as you know from science. The writer is a sociologist so for him evidence is stuff like "look what biased stuff they wrote in this book" or "I once experienced..." It's not a scientific style I'll ever get used to because it can be dismissed out of hand. Luckily I know real studies on the subject and they support his claims.
Unfortunately he is a sociologist himself and refrains from any direct critique of the scientific methods the studies he criticizes use. Probably because that's exactly what he himself does daily, just without that propaganda. So he will prod the science but then be apologetic and say that the studies were good unless someone directly lied in them. That's not great critique. Some of the studies he praises are based on very flimsy evidence while reaching extreme conclusions. The studies are not just propaganda. They are horrible science. Anyone from another field would have been more direct here as there would be no bridges to burn. That's by far the biggest error of this book. It supports bad science. Luckily he is critical enough for this book to not become bad science itself. Also, he has a 2 page long footnote in this chapter.
3rd chapter are the main religious beliefs in sociology. It's 4 pages long but it's 4 great pages.
4th chapter is the history. While the first 3 chapters are great and fun this one is a doozie. He showed some obnoxious philosophy/academic writing in the other chapters but here it's what leads the way and some weird unexplained historical events are brought forth. I'm not sure I understand what happened when or why. I understand the gist of it but it's a weird mix of personal ideas, academic writing, and history gists. This is not history. It's guesswork on unspecified things. But I do get that sociology was recently created to be left-wing biased and that's very interesting.
5th chapter is on destruction of their own academics. This is a very powerful chapter with some great examples of how this religion of sociology attacks and destroys their own. Many of the examples with no names given are always very iffy but the examples with names are really great and do feel real and serious. No matter if it's a big problem or not it's clear that sociology eat their own if they find a conservative amongst them that has too strong opinions outside their religion. It's a must read chapter for sure as it illustrates very clearly how most sociologists think about life in a biased way.
6th chapter is a low level discussion on the usefulness of sociology. The author proposes that sociology is not shut down but instead becomes a descriptive science that just makes sure to supply info to the masses. He seems to think it won't happen. I think it is a very farfetched dream unless something huge happens inside the field. Universities are becoming significantly more left-leaning even though they were already left-leaning before WW2 in USA. And whether a group is mostly left or right leaning they will lose that critical voice that tests their ideas. Go to a strong conservative or left-leaning forum and you'll see more logical fallacies than you can count most of them will get all the support there is. So I predict that no idea-testing means sociology won't change. Hopefully things get better and then sociologists themselves won't need to talk about needing to reform or close down their own field. It's just still a problem in the book itself that he hasn't really though about how things could hypothetically change in practise.
My conclusion:
I recommend this book to all social scientists. It's probably a must-read for any social scientist until something better is bound to come along very soon. It's not like Blank Slate though. Blank Slate I just recommend to all thinking people of all walks of life. This book is often weirdly unscientifically minded at times and feels like a loose discussion.
3rd time I mention this... While it's great to read a critical thinker look critically at his own field it's quite clear from the book that he feels passionately for the scientific field and thinks that they do some great science. He never seems to criticize the terrible soft science methods the sociology studies he mentions use. This is not hard to do in sociology. I can even easily do it in psychology and do so regularly. It's important to know how to spot crappy science and for some reason he seems unable to do so in this book.
It's still a fun and great book. But any critical reader will cringe at some parts and feel like the author is holding back or just doesn't understand how people do scientific experiments in the old fields that use the scientific method.
Sociology came about as a left-wing idea of how one could change society and make everyone free by attacking anyone who had evil power or evil thinking. Expertise, quality and objectivity is lacking in the field. Unfortunately I don't have any hope for this field whatsoever right now. But maybe in 50 to 100 years it could be replaced by economics or social psychology.
--------
I'm a hyper critical thinker so a book from a sociologist criticising his own field is just up my alley. I like people who can question the world around them if it becomes unfair and unscientific. And from outside it's clear that sociology doesn't follow the scientific method. But why is that?
Biases:
He studies religion but at no point in the book does it seem like he is a theist. In reality he doesn't even seem like an atypical sociologist besides being able to understand his own field in some parts. So he seems liberal/left-leaning but not overly biased in most areas. But at the end he reveals himself as a personalitist so he is kinda an old school liberal according to himself.
His huge bias is that he seems to think that science is discussion. So everything is a talk with loose to no evidence. This is typical of the field itself too. Unfortunately he never once shows any ability to see beyond the single study and explain why it's wrong or why the thinking in it is a fallacy. So basically he is way too lenient. He's gullible to a fault. It's not a directional bias it just reveals weak critical thinking on some points. He is still more critical than 99% of people in his field. Just not as critical as me or anyone I respect in the scientific community. But it's a great thing that I am unable to place him politically! Anyone who has read sociology and sociology textbooks know how rare that happens in the field. Most I read are clearly left-wing ideology.
Review:
I. The Argument
I.b The Project
II. Evidence
III. Spiritual Practices
IV. How Did We Get Here?-The Short Story
V. Consequences
VI. The Question of Accountability
VII. What is Sociology Good For?
1st chapter is the argument. A non scientific intro to the hypothesis that sociology is a pseudoreligion. Very short and engaging chapter that is low on evidence though.
2nd chapter is evidence. But not evidence as you know from science. The writer is a sociologist so for him evidence is stuff like "look what biased stuff they wrote in this book" or "I once experienced..." It's not a scientific style I'll ever get used to because it can be dismissed out of hand. Luckily I know real studies on the subject and they support his claims.
Unfortunately he is a sociologist himself and refrains from any direct critique of the scientific methods the studies he criticizes use. Probably because that's exactly what he himself does daily, just without that propaganda. So he will prod the science but then be apologetic and say that the studies were good unless someone directly lied in them. That's not great critique. Some of the studies he praises are based on very flimsy evidence while reaching extreme conclusions. The studies are not just propaganda. They are horrible science. Anyone from another field would have been more direct here as there would be no bridges to burn. That's by far the biggest error of this book. It supports bad science. Luckily he is critical enough for this book to not become bad science itself. Also, he has a 2 page long footnote in this chapter.
3rd chapter are the main religious beliefs in sociology. It's 4 pages long but it's 4 great pages.
4th chapter is the history. While the first 3 chapters are great and fun this one is a doozie. He showed some obnoxious philosophy/academic writing in the other chapters but here it's what leads the way and some weird unexplained historical events are brought forth. I'm not sure I understand what happened when or why. I understand the gist of it but it's a weird mix of personal ideas, academic writing, and history gists. This is not history. It's guesswork on unspecified things. But I do get that sociology was recently created to be left-wing biased and that's very interesting.
5th chapter is on destruction of their own academics. This is a very powerful chapter with some great examples of how this religion of sociology attacks and destroys their own. Many of the examples with no names given are always very iffy but the examples with names are really great and do feel real and serious. No matter if it's a big problem or not it's clear that sociology eat their own if they find a conservative amongst them that has too strong opinions outside their religion. It's a must read chapter for sure as it illustrates very clearly how most sociologists think about life in a biased way.
6th chapter is a low level discussion on the usefulness of sociology. The author proposes that sociology is not shut down but instead becomes a descriptive science that just makes sure to supply info to the masses. He seems to think it won't happen. I think it is a very farfetched dream unless something huge happens inside the field. Universities are becoming significantly more left-leaning even though they were already left-leaning before WW2 in USA. And whether a group is mostly left or right leaning they will lose that critical voice that tests their ideas. Go to a strong conservative or left-leaning forum and you'll see more logical fallacies than you can count most of them will get all the support there is. So I predict that no idea-testing means sociology won't change. Hopefully things get better and then sociologists themselves won't need to talk about needing to reform or close down their own field. It's just still a problem in the book itself that he hasn't really though about how things could hypothetically change in practise.
My conclusion:
I recommend this book to all social scientists. It's probably a must-read for any social scientist until something better is bound to come along very soon. It's not like Blank Slate though. Blank Slate I just recommend to all thinking people of all walks of life. This book is often weirdly unscientifically minded at times and feels like a loose discussion.
3rd time I mention this... While it's great to read a critical thinker look critically at his own field it's quite clear from the book that he feels passionately for the scientific field and thinks that they do some great science. He never seems to criticize the terrible soft science methods the sociology studies he mentions use. This is not hard to do in sociology. I can even easily do it in psychology and do so regularly. It's important to know how to spot crappy science and for some reason he seems unable to do so in this book.
It's still a fun and great book. But any critical reader will cringe at some parts and feel like the author is holding back or just doesn't understand how people do scientific experiments in the old fields that use the scientific method.
Sociology came about as a left-wing idea of how one could change society and make everyone free by attacking anyone who had evil power or evil thinking. Expertise, quality and objectivity is lacking in the field. Unfortunately I don't have any hope for this field whatsoever right now. But maybe in 50 to 100 years it could be replaced by economics or social psychology.
Read
November 8, 2018I’m glad I read this, but I’m not sure about some of it. I do seem to have a thing for academic curmudgeons.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews