In recent decades, unfortunately, sociology has gone the way of other “soft science” disciplines in that ideology often overrides inquiry. Some ideas are now forbidden because their discussion might be offensive to some people. Sociology courses and journals are so dominated by “progressive” notions that the field has lost its formerly robust character.
Some sociologists want to rescue their discipline from this groupthink. Two of them, Fabio Rojas of Indiana University and Charlotta Stern of Stockholm University, have assembled a formidable collection of essays in their new book, Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue. Their project is meant to get fellow sociologists to reconsider their embrace of progressive and even Marxist perspectives and think about the insights of classical liberalism.
In their introduction, the editors write:
Sociologists are often concerned about the effects of political and social institutions on the poorest and most marginal in society, and classical liberals have much to say about which institutions improve, or damage, those groups. Conversely, sociologists have a lot to teach classical liberals because they have a rich language for understanding the link between culture and institutions.
Because both sociology and classical liberalism have been around a long time, why the need for this introduction? It is because liberal-minded scholars have become extremely rare in sociology. Most sociologists are hostile to liberalism and hew dogmatically to statist ideas about social problems. As Rojas and Stern observe, “The dearth of classical liberal and libertarian scholars working on sociological topics suggests that important ideas are lost in the field.”
It was not always that way. Among the early sociologists were scholars who had an appreciation for classical liberalism. They included Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, both of whom warned against the unintended and deleterious consequences of collectivism through government action. Another early sociologist, less well known than Spencer and Sumner, was Britain’s Harriet Martineau, who had absorbed Adam Smith’s observations about social order emerging through voluntary cooperation.
Unfortunately, sociologists like Spencer, Sumner, and Martineau are mostly forgotten if not disparaged in the field today. Sociology has become a “discipline of discontent,” with a current obsession on “unmasking the sources of inequality and power.” But it misses the fact that those sources are often rooted in government policy.
Contemporary liberals / Although sociologists who appreciate classical liberalism are few and far between, Rojas and Stern have assembled a book by some of those who disagree with the leftist mainstream in the field. Below, I discuss several of these essays.
John Iceland and Eric Silver, both of Penn State, lead off with “Does Economic Liberalism Reduce Poverty?” They note that sociologists commonly accept the Marxist critique that capitalism brings about misery for the masses. Their “conflict theory” clashes with the classical liberal observation that capitalism is a result of peaceful cooperation and has a record of bringing about general advances in living standards for all. The authors review and rebut the standard claims that economic liberalism harms the poor by giving businesses power over workers and creating unjust disparities in wealth. Iceland and Silver respond, “While inequality is a feature of classical liberalism, a central problem with many critics is that they overlook the fact that the advent and spread of economic liberalism coincided with dramatic increases in standards of living ... not only in the U.S. and Europe but globally.” In sum, sociologists wedded to Marxist views would obtain a more realistic picture of the world if they’d consider how well classical liberal economic institutions—e.g., private property, free enterprise, free trade—have done at enabling people to lift themselves out of poverty.
Rojas makes an estimable contribution with his essay, “Race, Freedom, and Social Change.” Classical liberals, he notes, have strongly criticized race-based inequality since Adam Smith. But today, most sociologists maintain that racial inequality stems from liberalism and must be fought with coercive governmental mandates. Rojas pushes back against the increasingly popular idea among sociologists that slavery and capitalism are somehow linked, pointing out that the consensus that slavery is a moral wrong originated in the countries where classical liberalism had taken root. He writes, “The puzzle is why capitalist nations have reformed so much when sociological theory suggests that these reforms should not happen, or be superficial in character.”
Particularly interesting is Rojas’s presentation on ways that minority communities in the United States have used their liberty to combat government-sanctioned oppression. The famous bus boycotts in southern cities in the Civil Rights Era were effective because Black residents could pool their resources to provide transportation alternatives to municipal buses and regulated taxis. Rojas concludes with the observation that liberal societies are quite good at eroding oppression and exposing hypocrisy, a feature that should interest sociologists.
In his essay “The Predatory States of America,” Brandon Rudolph Davis of Tulane argues that government policies meant to solve social inequalities have a strong tendency to make things worse, a fact that sociologists seldom take into consideration now. Davis introduces public choice theory into his analysis, focusing on criminal law and enforcement. Sociologists, he argues, need to consider the incentives facing public officials rather than automatically declaring that racism is the cause of racial disparities in criminal law. He states, “If prosecutors are willing to bring charges in marginal and low-quality cases, it provides law enforcement with an incentive to make low-quality arrests, which I argue contribute to mass incarceration and the overrepresentation of racial minorities within the criminal justice system.”
In her essay “Feminism and Gendered Labor Markets,” Charlotta Stern makes the case that most sociologists mistakenly adhere to the “left-feminism” belief that all differences in outcomes between men and women are attributed to repression, discrimination, and patriarchal culture. That perspective is unable to account for many observable gender differences in labor markets. In contrast, Stern writes:
Classical liberalism is humble rather than bold; it does not presume that individuals share the same goals. It is also stern, a feminism that strongly believes in reason and toleration, and presumes that individuals themselves are responsible for their pursuit of life goals.
Stern laments the way left-feminist sociologists feel compelled to push “egalitarian” lifestyle choices that many women (and men) do not desire.
Healthcare issues also concern sociologists. In “Toward a Classical Liberal Theory of Health Care,” Rochester Institute of Technology professor Lauren Hall argues that classical liberalism provides a “toolbox” for understanding those issues. She offers the powerful insight that healthcare institutions and policies tend to be captured by interest groups, thereby turning them to the groups’ advantage, often at the expense of minority populations. Licensing regulations and certificate of need laws stifle competition in the provision of services that would benefit minority groups, such as the regulations that keep midwives from legally competing against the medical profession’s preferred birthing option, the hospital. Hall chides her fellow sociologists for complaining about what they call “the anarchy of choice” in markets when increased choice would clearly benefit people they profess to care about.
University of Illinois professor Ilana Redstone examines academe in her essay, “The Problem on Campus Is How We Think.” In her view, sociologists have become far too certain of their positions. “Certainty,” she writes, “makes it difficult to cultivate a culture that is open to a wide range of viewpoints and makes communication across ideological divides all but impossible.” Sociology has become mired in the “certainty trap.” Students and scholars often hesitate to voice opinions or even ask questions lest they be harshly treated for not thinking “correctly.” If sociology is to be restored as a vibrant academic discipline, it needs to escape from the certainty trap.
Market limits? / One essay is not particularly persuasive. In “Classical Liberalism versus Populism and Authoritarianism,” George Mason University professor Jack Goldstone argues that if most people are to accept classical liberalism, the state must intervene in the economy. According to Goldstone, “The goals of preserving a balance of liberty and prosperity and equality must be achieved with some degree of limits on free markets.” Among these are minimum wage laws and strong labor unions.
This position is quite debatable. In America, we had a high degree of support for classical liberalism before we had minimum wage laws or labor unions. Have these coercive economic interventions safeguarded a classical liberal consensus, or have they induced people to think, “If the government can act to confer benefits on some groups, why not organize politically and press for the state to give more?” Goldstone apparently believes that there is a stable equilibrium somewhere between the laissez-faire of pure classical liberalism and a government that meddles relentlessly in the lives of the people, but I think history says otherwise.
Putting my disagreement with Goldstone aside, Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue throws down a challenge to sociologists: Stop acting like zealots and once again act like scholars. Will any of them rise to this challenge?
