Today’s Sociology: Partisan Advocacy for ‘Woke’ Causes.
Sociology has little relevance or legitimacy because this once flourishing field has evolved into a discipline which disdains value-neutral research, and sacrifices research integrity for identity politics and social change activism. Today’s sociologists speak of commitment to standards of scientific rigor, but their practice is mainly ideology and sloppy empirical studies. Few trust their research findings.
There are some sociologists doing high caliber work, but they are greatly outnumbered by those producing crap and left-wing advocacy. Most sociologists’ work is motivated by politics or career motivations rather than value-neutral scientific inquiry. Undoubtedly, many questions in the domain of sociology are important and worthy of scientific study. However, the discipline has become so rotten, with really ideological, incompetent or unethical people deeply embedded within it, that a correction from its current trajectory seems unlikely.
Sociology’s faculty, professional associations, graduate programs and to a large degree journals are all complicit. Dissident sociologists keep their heads buried. The question has come up in various circles whether sociology can be saved or reformed. Many believe that the solution is to have other disciplines address the scientific questions that used to be in the wheelhouse for sociology and criminology. This is already happening.
After decades of teaching and research, the distinguished sociologist Alexander Riley reached this mordant conclusion about the state of his discipline:
“Today, sociology treats complex and contested questions with the most simplified framework imaginable. All questions about human life are now equations of victims and victimizers and the mechanisms by which the powerful oppress the powerless. No alternative explanatory models for the empirical outcomes we see in the world are entertained or even acknowledged as legitimate. All evidence that cannot be adequately twisted to fit the storyline is ignored. Outright mendacity about empirical matters is embraced, details of cases are occluded, and everything is furiously spun from the start in the direction desired.”
Woke Sociology is Fake Social Justice. Social Justice Without Economic Class.
Sociology has long attracted people interested in making the social world better, and more fair to those who have suffered from discrimination. They regarded themselves as natural experts on questions of the general good and social justice. Historically sociologists have expressed ‘class-based’ solidarity, seeking to elevate low income, and ‘marginalized’ people of all backgrounds. Sociological studies of disparities in wealth and power primarily looked at social and economic predictors such as money, class, heredity and nepotism. In contrast, the dominant concern of today’s ‘woke’ sociology is achieving equal outcomes for groups defined by their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, immigration status, indigeneity and physical ability. Left progressive universalism has been replaced by tribalism and competitive victimhood.
Critical Theory and Intersectionality Underlie Woke Sociology
The definition and core tenets of wokism are contested and vary by institutional setting. Political scientist Eric Kaufman provides a general definition of woke as ‘the sacralization of historically disadvantaged race, gender and sexual identity groups’. In academic sociology, I define the precepts of wokism as:
Everything (including science and academia) is racist, sexist, hetero and colonial and about power struggle between the oppressors and oppressed.
Existing social inequalities and unequal representation are due to currently existing systemic racism and sexism.
Everything (including science and education) needs to be dismantled and rebuilt to ensure Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)
The oppressor is defined according to their position in the intersectionality power spectrum.
An oppressor is inherently unable to appreciate information presented by a oppressed victim person.
Those who are not with us are against us and must be punished
Underlying woke sociology are the philosophies of critical theory, intersectionality and ultimately Marxism. Intersectionality sees forms of oppression as linked, reinforcing and multiplying into a forest of trauma. Complicated issues are reduced to articles of faith. Although not all sociologists are in the critical social justice camp, the majority have acquiesced to their discipline as an activist field with a grievance-based social justice mission.
No One has a Monopoly on the Truth
Higher education should aim to foster the development of students’ independent and critical thinking skills. Universities should be institutionally neutral and pluralistic, providing students with the conceptual tools for understanding the world.
There are always good arguments on both sides of any complex issue, and no single perspective has a monopoly on truth. What is ‘socially just’ or the best path to social betterment are not clear and easily agreed upon.
Ideas and beliefs should be freely and openly discussed, and conflicting viewpoints should be presented in a fair and dispassionate manner. Moreover, as the oft-cited John Stuart Mill points out, it is important to hear opinions in their most plausible and persuasive forms from people who believe them.
Current sociology has rejected these precepts. The woke left viewpoint deserves to be taught, but not to the exclusion of all other perspectives. Presenting only one point of view breeds confirmation bias, groupthink and pressure to conform. It also weakens one’s own arguments because they are not challenged.
Sociology: The Academy’s Progressive Vanguard
Although wokists dominate much of the social sciences and humanities, they are most hegemonic in sociology. In a systematic review of studies, Professor Yanor shows that liberals outnumber conservatives by forty-seven to one. Almost no one is openly right of center. One study found zero Republicans. Another found a grand total of 12 conservative sociologists out of 6,000 in the country. They are vastly outnumbered by self-identified “Marxists”. Thousands of sociology books and articles have been written from a variety of perspectives, including Marxist, liberal, progressive, feminist, intersectionalist, radical, and post-modernist. To date, however, very few have been written from our outlining a conservative perspective on sociological subjects.
Sociologists Start with a Conclusion and Find Evidence That Supports It
Sociological studies are fairly criticized for starting with a conclusion, and then finding evidence that supports it. It is no exaggeration to say this is business as usual. In their conception of the world, the oppressive nature of society is assumed. Basic ideological parameter e.g. pervasive structural racism and racially biased policing are fixed and unargued. All analysis proceeds from there. Methods are rigged to arrive at these ideologically preferred conclusions. Statistical malfeasance, evidence cherry-picking and intellectual dishonesty are common.
A majority of sociologists believe that sociology “should analyze and transcend oppression”. In pursuit of this, they employ a progressive epistemology which judges the veracity of scientific findings as to whether they come out in line with the expected woke orthodoxies and articles of faith. This is in stark contrast to the norms of science (disinterestedness, skepticism, universalism) put forward by Weber and Merton, and practiced by many sociologists in the past.
Studies Do Not Contradict Accepted Orthodoxies
Sociologists refrain from publishing studies that contradict key progressive orthodoxies. Findings that run contrary to their biases and political positions are disregarded. It is difficult to publish results that are considered harmful to marginalized groups (e.g. studies that do not find evidence of bias/unfair treatment but instead find differences in risks/behaviors). A well known example is Robert Putnam’s finding that trust is lower in ethnically diverse communities. He held off publishing his results until he could think up ways to make them politically palatable. This highlights the clear and strong moral stigma associated with questioning accepted findings and the causal connections being posited. It is not uncommon for there to be hundreds of published studies which support an ideologically favored conclusion, but few that question or refute it.
Top Sociology Journals Publishing ‘Absolute Crap’
Throughout the social sciences, all too often researchers already know what they want to say, and, they’ll do an experiment or a data analysis or whatever as just a means to an existing end. This hackwork science is most pronounced in sociology where it overwhelms the system.
Often the data sociologists use is wrong but fits the ideological argument that people want to have. It’s what they want to believe but as the distinguished criminologist David Weisburd points out, there’s a difference between what you wan to believe and what is true.
Since they get the causal connections wrong their policy recommendations that, if implemented, prove ineffective or even counterproductive - harming the people they were intended to help. As the distinguished economist, Glenn Loury points out “only a sociologist would believe that 70 percent of kids being born out of wedlock in a community is not a bad thing in terms of development”.
Even the respected statistician Andrew Gelman, usually friendly to sociology, finally had enough when a top sociology journal, Demography, published an article which he called ‘a hack job’ and ‘absolute crap’. The article argued that Trump’s 2016 election led to increased birth defects for non-white mothers. Gelman pondered “how this sort of paper with weak science and a crude political agenda can get published in legitimate journals”. A mystery for the ages.
Sociology Curriculum: Every Course Allows You To Unpack Your Privileges
Many sociology departments, e.g. Rollins College, openly boast that their goal is to make the world more fair. Every course in their department, they advertise, “incorporates sociological training that will allow you to unpack your privileges, understand oppression, and find a way to keep doing the work without paralyzing yourself in guilt”. The University of the Redlands regards sociology as “a liberatory enterprise”.
Within departments, sociologists create novel ideologically aligned minors (“solidarity and social justice”), and politically partisan programs and institutes. Convinced of their moral mandate, they are not open to learning from conservatives whom they construe as hostile partisans, not worth a moment’s attention. Intellectual engagement and ideological cohabitation are not acceptable.
Conservative Sociology Professors and Students Face Isolation and Ridicule
Professor Jussim compiled 13 privileges which progressive professors enjoy. These include the ability to conduct research without colleagues publishing “scientific articles” claiming that they are are deficient in intelligence and morality because of their political beliefs.
The discrimination against conservatives is most pronounced in sociology where conservatives, particularly cultural conservatives, are thought to be morally deficient. They face a hostile climate including isolation and ridicule. Their perspectives on contentious issues are denounced, belittled, and kept out of prestigious journals and course curricula. As sociology professor Mark Horowitz’ survey of his colleagues, sociologists hoping for tenure should keep any conservative views to themselves, especially since a growing number of departments are expanding criteria for promotion and tenure to include “supporting engaged social justice”.
Sociologists Forbid Any Conclusion That Strikes Them as a ‘Social Injustice’.
Sociologists take an inquisitorial stance against anyone who investigates a taboo subject, reaches a politically incorrect conclusion or supports a practice or outcome that strikes them as a ‘social injustice’. Entire disciplines like economics are commonly disregarded because they don’t properly address power imbalances and violate sociology’s enforced consensus is that social problems solely arise from “structural conditions”.
An illustration of this is migration research where extensive research is conduced on the legal rights and psychological/social/economic stresses of the migrants. However, little attention is paid to the people and communities adversely effected by legal or illegal mass migration as well as the socially optimal level of migration.
Inquisition: Penalties Serve to Punish Offenders and Intimidate Potential Transgressors.
Paul Allison, a well-regarded sociologist who held deep Christian convictions took a position on a ‘value issue’ that cost him his candidacy for a promotion. Another conservative Christian sociologist, Mike Adams, made controversial tweets and comments which were no less offensive and than the tweets of hundreds of woke sociologists (to which no one batted an eye). In response, nearly 270 sociology professors and graduate students from across the country issued a statement calling for his firing. Subject to harassment and persistent baseless accusations, he later killed himself.
Mark Regnerus’s Colleague is Furious a Christian Professor is Besmirching Her University
Similarly, when University of Texas sociologist, Mark Regnerus, reached a ‘wrong conclusion’ in an LGBT related study, his research was immediately discredited. Over 200 sociologists signed a letter questioning his motives and integrity, and vilifying his character. A UT colleague commented:
“I am disturbed by his irresponsible and reckless representation of social science research, and furious that he is besmirching my university to lend credibility to his ‘findings’…Pseudo-science that demonizes gay and lesbian families contributes to stress, and is not good for children.”
I don't know whether Professor Regnerus's study is valid. What is clear is that the ASA as an organization, not to mention hordes of sociologists, viciously attacked him in a way that they never would have done with a study that reached the politically correct conclusion about kids raised by gay couples.
Sociologists couldn't accept the possibility that kids raised by gay couples, other things being equal, might experience more difficulties than kids raised by straight couples. Convinced they are on the right side of history, they have no compunction bullying, demonizing and threatening those who step out of line.
Professor Violated the Woke Tenet of ‘Positionality’ by not Checking Her Privilege.
An interesting bullying episode occurred when the (politically liberal) white sociologist Alice Goffman had the audacity to conduct a field study in a black community. An anonymous accuser sent an email to hundreds of sociologists alerting them at this white woman had violated the woke tenet of ‘positionality’ by not checking her privilege. Only victims have true insight into other victims. They alone are equipped to do meaningful research in those areas.
The severe rebukes to these good-faith scholars serves to enforce woke orthodoxy, stifles research and intimidate potential transgressors.
Punished for Having the Wrong Facial Expression
While exhibiting the narcissistic or ‘white mans’ gaze are established transgressions in academia, having the wrong facial expression is now a punishable offence. In her Boston University sociology class, the distinguished social theorist Liah Greenfeld was reported to university authorities by students who thought the expression on her face indicated that she did not approve of LGBT. BU encouraged students to report anonymously on their classmates and professors. For a semester, the dean and the chairman of the sociology department sat in on every class and watched her face. One would think they’d have something better to do.
Moderate and Liberal Faculty Shy Away From Controversial Topics
Even moderate and liberal faculty water down their ideas, shy away from controversial topics and avoid situations where they would have to reveal their true beliefs. They are careful to approach 'permitted’ topics in ideologically acceptable ways. Transgressing the field’s moral sensibilities, defying the language police or veering from the prevailing orthodoxy has resulted in shaming, ridicule, cancelled courses, retracted articles, and even the denial of tenure and loss of one’s job and reputation. Students are also impacted. A self-described ‘apolitical’ graduate student specializing in the sociology of sports reported unwanted faculty pressure to engage in politics.
The Classroom as a Forum for Indoctrinating Students
The teaching of sociology is all too often left-wing politics and indoctrination under the guise of objective science. Students are presented complex issues only through the lens of woke activism, oppressor and victim, and dogmatism. Pseudoscientific studies about racial microaggressions and ferreting out racism in the subconscious of white people are mainstays.
The Classroom as a Space of Counter-Hegemony
The sociology classroom has been described as a safe space, “a space of counter-hegemony” and a site where “knowledge can be reclaimed as a tool for liberation rather than exclusion”. Non one should feel comfortable. To illustrate, a white male professor nervous about teaching a class on race and ethnicity sought advice on Reddit as to how to approach the ‘challenges of positionality’ and be “mindful of the dynamics of power and privilege while ensuring the class remains a rigorous, critically engaged space”. Responders emphasized the need for a safe space and to avoid speaking from a white person’s point of view. “Don’t come across as too personally ashamed or apologetic when discussing these things”. This woke nonsense is not knowledge. It is more like therapy and doomed to fail as an educational venture.
Conservative Views are Largely Ignored
Conservative views are largely ignored. When they are given a hearing they are presented weakly or misrepresented to ensure their immediate dismissal. Students who challenge orthodox claims have been shouted down or shamed merely for expressing opinions that do not align with the dominant views. A pernicious groupthink (encompassing belief in their moral superiority and being on the right side of history, stereotyping of out-groups, etc.) closes off the possibility of rich debates on the interplay of social, economic and cultural factors.
The Cult of Sociology: The ‘Sociological Imagination’
Sociology embodies what Professor Haidt calls an academic ‘tribal moral community’. It also bears all the earmarks of a cult. One department calls itself a “community for social change, social justice, and equality” with “supportive peers”. A sociologist observes that his colleagues “comprise an emotive left progressive community with shared norms and a tribal loyalty to sacralized victims.” Another describes a “warm and welcoming community”. Sociologists view themselves as compassionate and committed to social amelioration and the ‘defense of humanity’. Professor McCaffrey notes that students select sociology as a major because they want to change the world and usher in a utopian society where no racism, sexism, ableism, classism or discrimination of any kind exists.
Redditor user Bourgeoisetrashlord explains how she distanced herself from her old friends when she started studying sociology:
“I tried to find community with people who felt similar to me. I hung out with sociology majors and joined organizations working on issues that I was most passionate about, and that's how I made my friends”.
The ‘Sociological Lens’: Expose Hidden Truths
Sociologists believe that society operates on the basis of invisible power structures that those trained in the field are best qualified to detect. Departmental mission statements exult how the ‘sociological lens’ is “where we make the strange familiar’ and critical for ‘opening your eyes’ so you can see problems clearly and eliminate inequality.
Sociologists invented an esoteric language for ‘exposing hidden truths’ and showing students “the inner-workings of things they might have experienced every day”. They augment the existing woke lexicon with novel terms such as agnotology, manosphere and racialization. A sociology student explains: “I felt like I was primed to understand what I was learning, and someone just needed to peel back the curtain and show it to me.”
One sociology professor introduced his class to the “sociological eye”, which “can never really be turned off”. The sociological eye, he says is really special: “Not everyone can unlock it because not everyone has the capacity for it - if more people did, I believe that society would be a very different place. Use your sociological eye to try and improve the world around you, because we see structural issues, not a culmination of individual problems”. That’s pretty good.
Sociology’s Revered Canon
Most revered among sociology’s sacred texts is undoubtedly “The Sociological Imagination” by C. Wright Mills. A graduate student recalls how his professor “used to take out his dog-eared copy of the book and read passages out loud to me like a catechist”.
According to the current sociology guru, Pierre Bourdieu, sociology, allows you to “think in a completely astonished and disconcerted way about things you think you had always understood”. “It reveals that which is hidden”. Students lap this up.
Sociology, like other cults, rejects or ignores fact-based arguments opposed to their existing beliefs. Since it frowns on open discussions with adversaries, their bs arguments are allowed to circulate without being challenged. It is an echo chamber. Their values come to seem valid to themselves because they never associate with anyone who disagrees with them. “I'm not going to engage. He's evil”
Dominated by the White Man's Gaze?
For a field obsessed with diversity and inclusion, the dearth of white men among sociology faculty and graduate students is striking. In an impassioned 2020 article, the ASA president made the profoundly dishonest claim that sociology departments are very old, very white and “dominated by the white man's gaze”.
Even a casual scan of sociology department websites reveals that white men are a shrinking minority in the field. This is obvious, self-documenting and most evident among junior faculty and graduate students. White men typically comprise between 3 and 15 percent of sociology graduate students. At Johns Hopkins 1 of 36 students is a white man. In 2024 of Columbia’s 7 assistant professors and 17 incoming graduate students, one is a white man. (University of North Carolina: 6 of 57; Georgia: 1 of 33; Yale: 4 of 44. Pick your department). Of the few white men, a good percentage lay claim to another oppressed identity, such as LBGTQ.
White Men Reject Sociology’s Discrimination and Woke Ideology
Undoubtedly, white men have fled sociology due to the centrality of ideologies (‘white hetero patriarchal violence’, ‘white supremacy culture’ etc.) which designate this presumably most privileged segment of society as the permanent bad guys who “structure the surface of everyday life distorting the nature of truth and reality”. It is hard to miss the proliferation of assigned texts such as: “White Male Mediocrity”, “White Supremacy, Patriarchy and Capitalism”, “White Man Falling”, “Angry White Men”, and “The White Man Victimhood of the Rabid Puppies”.
Ultimately, those white heterosexual men who complete the Ph.D program - without the benefit of race and gender-based scholarships - will be disfavored in the job market. If they get a job, promotions and competitive research grants will be harder to obtain. This reverse racism starts at the top of the profession. In the name of ‘resisting oppression’ and intervening in ‘socio-political struggles’, the American Sociological Association eliminated white men from leadership positions 15 years ago. It will take generations, they argue “to overcome sociology’s roots in Eurocentric white male supremacy”. The US regional sociology organizations followed suit. As of April, 2025, not one of the eight major smaller associations had a white man in leadership.
Sociology’s Golden Age
During its mid-20th Century heyday, sociology’s dominant theory was functionalism which views society as a system of interrelated parts that work together toward the goal of overall societal harmony and stability. Although most sociologists were politically liberal, functionalism embodied a conservative view of social order.
The golden age was characterized by viewpoint diversity and the flourishing of creative thinkers (Kai Erickson, Erving Goffman, etc.) who offered original analyses of social problems addressing the “big questions”. These book-writing sociologists and ethnographers viewed their professional role as to understand the actions of others by putting themselves in their shoes (verstehen), not to advocate.
Empirical and Value Neutral Sociology
In the 1960s and 70’s a new generation of empirical sociologists became prominent. They believed in value-neutral sociology. Although aware of their personal beliefs and moralities, they set them aside when they sat down to do their academic studies. Mostly apolitical and quantitative, they were serious about using methodology properly, had high evidentiary norms, and employed methods to safeguard their objectivity. As a result, sociology could be a source of insight and practical value for policy and social programs.
(Nonetheless, even in it's golden age, there were both radical sociologists who attacked dominant sociology as a mere handmaiden to oppressive state power, as well as a strong current of opposition who regarded sociology as an unsound and disreputable pseudoscience.)
The Ascendancy of the Radical Sociologists
Around 1970, the gatekeepers in Sociology began to cave to “radical sociology.” It turned out that making good scientific research policy relevant is not the same as making good scientific research ideological. Seems an obvious point but it has been too subtle for most of the profession. By the 1980s, radical ideologies began to colonize the field. By the turn of the century, the sociology insurgents of 1968 held the highest positions in the discipline.
Once the activists took over, as Jonathan Turner observes, "scholars" were no longer accepting of intellectual diversity, and became willing to lie and cheat to realize their narrow goals.
Established specialties like ‘marriage and the family’ disappeared from course catalogues, replaced by “gender studies” and “victimology”. Criminal justice became ‘Reparative Justice’ and ‘Carceral Studies’. Gentrification has become ‘white space making’. Traditional fields like medical sociology and social psychology shrunk dramatically. Functionalism was repudiated for conservative biases and legitimizing the status quo. Stability and harmony were hardly desirable when the activist element is front and center and the goal is the total overturning of society.
A Sea Change in What Counts as Scholarship
In time, ideas that had been percolating for many years on the periphery of the field, moved to center stage. The once highly productive field of ethnography was overrun by deconstructionists and woke activists who held that only researchers of an oppressed group can authentically write about their experiences. A rich tradition of insightful participant-observation studies became disfavored.
Post-modernism and other intellectual movements resulted in a sea change in what counted as scholarship. These theories questioned the very possibility of value-neutrality and objective knowledge, providing legitimization for sociologists to become advocates. Research standards became sloppy and researchers misinterpreted their findings to fit what they wanted. The line between scholarship and indoctrination and activism was blurred.
American Sociological Association: Sociology’s Radical Governing Body
For decades sociology’s radical governing organization, the American Sociological Association (ASA) has disregarded professional standards of scholarship and exhibited contemptuous disregard for members who do dare not share their views. Their numerous ‘resolutions’ and political statements (passed with little discussion or debate) promoting their own conception of social justice are politically partisan, and outside the purview of any scholarly or professional association. (Other organizations such as the Society for the Study of Social Problems split off from the ASA because it was too conservative).
The ASA, which sees themselves as scholar-activists and proudly claims the mantle of radical politically engaged activism, was outraged when the right-leaning state of Florida removed sociology from their required core course list. The ASA responded by claiming that sociologists are advancing the objective scientific study of social life. As professor Eppard points out, sociologists claim to be activists until the moment you criticize them. Then they use science as a shield to legitimize their research in the language of the science they just got done telling you they reject.