Social Problems and Sociological Theory

Members and friends of the Society: I want tonight to make a brief statement of the reasons which cause me to believe in and support this society and to hope that it will continue to prosper. In doing so I shall perhaps somewhat overstate and oversimplify my case in order to emphasize my point and for the sake of brevity. I trust that whatever this talk lacks in wit and wisdom will be to some degree compensated for by its brevity. As I see it, there is a sharp and categorical difference between the concern with social problems and the interest in sociological theory. The former involves applied or practical research and the attempt to influence policy. It is almost always a manysided, multidisciplinary matter, and involves committing oneself on questions of value or morality, as when legal reform is advocated for the sake of justice or when police reform is urged to protect or restore civil liberties. In contrast, the task of theory construction is, and probably must be, the concern of single disciplines which focus their attention on particular aspects of human social behavior concerning which they seek to formulate valid and significant generalizations. To qualify for the honorific designation of "scientific" these formulations must satisfy a number of requirements which, in the study of human behavior, are especially hard to meet. It is not enough that the writer be careful and exact, that he use numbers rather than words, that the generalizations have no practical implications, or that they be couched in complicated and abstruse language. To qualify as scientific, generalizations of the social scientist must measure up to those standards and specifications which are reasonably clearly established and formulated in the tradition and literature of modern Western science. In this concern with the development of theory it is desirable and inevitable that the sociologist concentrate on sociological rather than social problems. In his scientific role he is concern d merely with what things are, not with what ought to be. He seeks to be detached, dispassionate, objective and impartial. When he has his scientific hat on he avoids the ethical commitments and value judgments involv d in social policy and, I am incli ed to think, he is usually not qualified as a scientist to speak authoritatively on social problems. I say this becau e such problems are not exclusively sociological but are compounds of many diverse elements which are not the exclusive concern of any single discipline. Having said these things it may appear that the argument leads logically to the conclusion that the sociologist ought not be concerned at all with social problems as such. There was a time when I thought that this was so and I am still inclined to agree that, insofar as he is a scientist, the sociologist's central concern is not with social problems. The dilemma of the sociologist who wishes to be a scientist and who is at the same time vitally concerned with matters that are the subject of controversy on the practical policy level, is most properly handled, in my opinion, not by renouncing one's civic responsibilities but by accepting them and keeping them separate from one's scientific responsibilities. There are risks in whatever one does, but I think the risks here are greatest when the sociologist sets himself apart from his society and tries to limit himself, Presidential address to the Society for the Study of Social Problems delivered on August 28, 1960 at the Gov. Clinton Hotel, New York, N. Y.