A Decolonial View

By Hanna Jansson

Raewyn Connell is an Australian sociologist who in an article from 1997 criticized the sociological canon, i.e. what is usually referred to as the ‘classical theory’. If you open just about any book aimed at undergraduate students in sociology, you will likely read about Karl Marx, E´mile Durkheim, and Max Weber, whom Cornell describes as ‘the founding fathers’. Because of this, classical theory focuses on class, alienation, and industrialization. These elements have been and are important for European development.

The familiar canon embodies an untenable foundation story of great men theorizing European modernity. Sociology actually emerged from a broad cultural dynamic in which tensions of liberalism and empire were central. Global expansion and colonization gave sociology its main conceptual framework and much of its data, key problems, and methods. After early-20th-century crisis, a profoundly reconstructed American discipline emerged, centered on difference and disorder within the metropole. The retrospective creation of a “classical” canon solved certain cultural dilemmas for this enterprise and generated a discipline-defining pedagogy, at the price of narrowing sociology’s intellectual scope and concealing much of its history (Cornell, 1997).

This leaves little room for analyses of, for example, race and gender. But not because race, gender and sexuality were not central issues in sociology at this time, but because they have been ignored. W.E.B. Du Bois wrote in 1901 that the color line was “the problem of the 20th century”, which was not an uncommon statement at the time. Cornell argues that we need to revise the sociological canon: “Sociology can be introduced to students not as a story of ‘great men’”. She argues that it cannot be undone but needs to be replaced by our own history, because these theories were constructed in a colonial world.

Image: Weber, Marx and Durkheim from https://classicalsociologicaltheory.wordpress.com/ (Downloaded 2024-02-17)

These ‘founders’ are still used by Connell and others. They are theories that travel with us in time, which is precisely what makes them classic, and therefore they are important to retain, states Michael Coroway. He argues that whether the sociological canon should be retained or completely revamped is a current debate in the field. He criticizes Connell´s previous arguments and highlights the value of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim as a sociological canon. There are certainly important and applicable theorists like Du Bois who need to be emphasized more, but not at the expense of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. It is not possible to ‘just’ add Du Bois to the existing canon. It would mean rebuilding a canon based on completely new relationships and a new review of all these theorists. It would thus require a recalibration of all of them. When Marx was added to the canon, Weber and Durkheim were not removed but were re-read with ‘Marx’s glasses’ and put in dialogue with each other.

It is precisely under the premise that a canon is relational that the biggest question mark over a change is raised. It is thus a dialogue between theories. Du Bois has written important and significant works such as The Philadelphia Negro (1899) and The Souls of Black Folk (1903), but although he has made important contributions, he is not automatically a candidate for a place in the canon. The inclusion of Du Bois could be the fall of the canon, but it could also enhance it with a broader content on race, colonialism, and imperialism. However, this would require a great deal of effort and review, but also not to focus too much on Du Bois’ early texts where he, for example, had difficulties relating to Durkheim. In his later works, he engages in dialogue with Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. In conclusion, Coroway believes that the canon would benefit from the addition of Du Bois for greater inclusion but needs to be done with caution.

Bibliography 

Burawoy, M. (2021). Why is classical theory classical? Theorizing the canon and canonizing Du Bois. Journal of Classical Sociology, 21(3-4), 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X211036955

Connell, R. W. (1997). Why Is Classical Theory Classical? American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1511–1557. https://doi.org/10.1086/231125