A guarded welcome.

There is a great deal to welcome in Michael Burawoy's plea for public sociology. For one thing, sociologists can have an impact on public affairs, and in the varied ways in which he suggests. The role played by European sociology in ending capital punishment seems to me exemplary, and I have no doubt but that basic morality should lead sociologists into active engagement when they clearly have something to contribute. For another, the sociological literature on intellectuals (and so on us) surely shows that isolation from society is dangerous , the breeding ground not just for trivia but also for fantasies of place and power – which occasionally have led to dreadful historical actions. If contact with clients and interaction with social movements helps to breed a sense of reality it is to be endorsed wholeheartedly. Finally, much of what he admires – analysis of class relations and power structures more generally – should be at the centre of the sociological imagination. But despite all this, my welcome is guarded. A different view of the character and history of sociology and of the nature of contemporary social realities suggests qualifications to his view. Sociology can be defined in various ways. Burawoy is almost Durkheimian in stressing the social, thereby leaving the political and the economic to other disciplines. Imperialism appeals to me much more. Sociology should be the king or queen of social science, asking when and why a particular source of power has dominance in social relations. This is what Weber was about, and my comment is of course deeply Weberian in that it takes for granted that different types of power can and do have autonomy at particular points in the historical record. From this view follows the claim that there are three stages to sociology's history. First came the founders, from Montesquieu and Smith to Durkheim and Weber, whose greatness lies in combining theory with empirical concerns. In contrast, the second stage has been far too professional, heavily concerned with concepts rather than reality. If Parsons represented an early apogee of this tendency, it is crucial to insist that this stage most certainly has not ended