In the sociological imagination, capitalism is now regarded as a sin standing next to sexism and racism. Routinely, sociologists call for their colleagues and students to oppose capitalism and use their classrooms as places where people can understand the repressive nature of “neoliberalism.”
In fact, a former president of the American Sociological Association, Michael Burawoy, argued in his presidential address that one of the main purposes of sociology is to stand in opposition to capitalism. He warned the ASA that “unfettered capitalism fuels market tyrannies and untold inequities on a global scale.” Later in the same remarks, Professor Burawoy argued for an activist sociology, a public sociology. He said that in the intellectual sphere, economists stand for the expansion of markets in social life. In contrast, “sociology—and in particular its public face—defends the interests of humanity.”
Sociology’s criticism of modern society doesn’t limit itself to an anti-market stance.Burawoy was not an isolated voice in the discipline of sociology who thought that capitalism is the enemy. Many leading figures openly embrace anti-capitalism or see Marxist theory as an inspiration for their work.
Patricia Hill Collins is one of the primary architects of intersectional social theory and also a former president of the American Sociological Association. Within academic sociology, she is known for coining the phrase “matrix of domination,” which refers to the ways that different types of social statuses, such as race and gender, combine to define inequality. In her seminal text, Black Feminist Thought, Collins writes: “Feminism advocates women’s emancipation and empowerment, [while] Marxist social thought aims for a more equitable society.”
Sociology’s criticism of modern society doesn’t limit itself to an anti-market stance. Sociologists are often opposed to many of the institutions that define modern liberal societies. Wendy Leo Moore and Joyce Bell criticized free-speech norms on the ground that they enable racist attacks and a general atmosphere of neoliberalism. And David Hargreaves wrote that modern schools are afflicted with a “cult of individualism” that can be dispelled with sociological analysis.
Thus, one might conclude that sociology is a field of inquiry defined by a commitment to collectivism and a rejection of liberal institutions such as markets, limited government, ethical individualism, and free speech.
I am here to tell you that this is wrong.
It is absolutely true that most sociologists lean to the left, and Marx is more popular than Mises within the discipline. At the same time, there is nothing to prevent scholars from developing a social science that takes liberty seriously.
What would a pro-liberty or pro-market sociology look like? With that task in mind, I produced a book called Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue: Freedom Is Something We Do Together, co-edited with my friend and colleague Charlotta Stern of Stockholm University and the Ratio Institute.
The book answers the question, “How can sociology and classical liberalism improve each other with an honest dialogue?” Each of the nine chapters addresses a core idea in sociology, such as poverty, racism, and social change, with ideas drawn from classical liberalism, such as free-market economics, viewpoint diversity, limited government, and an appreciation of free speech. The authors of each chapter bring their expertise in their topic to develop an exchange between classical-liberal thinking and academic sociology.
There is nothing to prevent scholars from developing a social science that takes liberty seriously.In writing this book, we had three major goals in mind.
First, Professor Stern and I needed to fundamentally challenge the way many sociologists view their own discipline. In sociology graduate theory seminars, it is common for faculty to have students do in-depth readings of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Recently, there has been a movement to add W.E.B. DuBois to this canon. What an astute reader might notice is that three of these four writers were socialists, and Weber was a German Catholic who was quite despondent about capitalism and called the market society an “iron cage.” The astute reader will also notice that social theorists who defend industrial society are absent from the list of approved authors.
William Graham Sumner was a professor at Yale University and one of the first presidents of the American Sociological Association. He was a defender of laissez-faire and a critic of state-directed social engineering and welfare programs. Yet, he is absent from most theory seminars, save for a few excerpts about social mores from his book Folkways. Herbert Spencer, one of the most well-known defenders of laissez-faire in the 19th century, is similarly absent and often dismissed as a “social Darwinist.” Among 20th-century sociologists, the extremely eminent Robert Nisbet is rarely taught, and students do not learn about Burkean social theory.
Even when sociologists adopt liberty-minded writers, their pro-market views are often ignored. For example, many sociologists are exploring the works of 19th-century writer Henriette Martineau. It is easy to understand this impulse. Martineau is like de Tocqueville in that she believed that a society is best understood through the lens of its customs, attitudes, and informal social practices. Some have even argued that Martineau was a proto-ethnographer because she believed that the only way to learn about social practices was to visit people and know them directly. Many sociologists underplay that Martineau was an avid believer in Adam Smith and thought that labor and capital could work in harmony. She was also an early feminist and abolitionist.
The second goal of the book is to offer an empirical corrective to sociologists who often underplay the vital role that liberty has in improving human life.
In a chapter on poverty and market liberalism, John Iceland and Eric Silver of Pennsylvania State University point out that nations with free markets tend to have less poverty than states with highly regulated markets. They also point out a fact that’s mostly absent from sociological discourse on income inequality—that national wealth, which tracks economic freedom, is associated with more income equality. Furthermore, some of the increased inequality that has been observed in the U.S. and elsewhere happened mainly because the wealthiest saw income increases, not because the poor saw decreased incomes. An awareness of these facts might help sociologists appreciate the virtues of freedom.
An awareness of the facts might help sociologists appreciate the virtues of freedom.In my chapter on racism and social change, I argue that liberal institutions do not shackle minorities. Rather, institutions like private property and free speech give minorities the tools they need to improve their position in a society with a hostile majority. During the Civil Rights era, for example, working-class black men and women donated modest sums of money that supported the organizations that fought for their freedom, such as the NAACP. Individual rights of free speech and press were used to confront hostile state actors who imposed segregation. Rather than harming minorities, liberty-enhancing institutions help them in the battles they face.
The third goal of the book is to encourage social scientists to develop a liberty-minded academic field. The core insight of classical-liberal social thought is that freedom is a good thing. Another insight is that freedom does not mean anomie. Rather, freedom is enacted through specific social norms and institutions. As a result, classical-liberal scholars should be keenly interested in the social conditions that make freedom possible, as well as the consequences of freedom.
So far, much of the discussion has resided in economics, where many researchers seek to understand how liberalized markets increase wealth. This is a valuable, but incomplete, approach to liberty-minded social science. Social scientists need to establish a broader field of inquiry that explores the many social manifestations of freedom.
Sociology can do its part by studying the social contexts of tolerance and pluralism. For example, it is common for people to be afraid of new technologies and to demand that they be banned or excessively regulated. This is a problem because new technologies and the firms that develop and disseminate them are key factors in economic growth. Sociologists could study the cultural attitudes that encourage people to be more tolerant of market innovations and profit seeking.
I am under no illusion that all sociologists will come to my point of view and endorse the virtues of free markets and limited government. Still, sociology can only benefit by diversifying its intellectual portfolio. Students and professors alike will be enriched by a pluralistic social science, where the critics and defenders of markets and freedoms all have ample voice.
Fabio Rojas is a professor of sociology at Indiana University, Bloomington, and is the co-editor, most recently, of Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue: Freedom Is Something We Do Together.