A diagnosis of society and Nordic sociology

Abstract

Why are Nordic sociologists not providing diagnoses of society these days? What has happened to our desire to describe the wider sociocultural currents of the world we live in? Where indeed are the present-day Danish Sennett, the Finnish Rosa, or the Swedish Bauman? These questions resurface now and again, yet without gaining substantial traction. Even so, present-day Nordic sociology is in many ways flourishing through a growing specialization, mirroring how sociology should be the home of the many and manifold. This comment is therefore not about decrying what is currently being done in Nordic sociology. Rather, it is about – yet again – reminding us of the worth of a diagnosis of the times kind of sociology and to push for its reinstatement. More will be lost than gained if we don’t. To be sure, if we sociologists are not also interested in and capable of providing a broader-scale analysis of societal trends and tendencies, there is a risk of us curbing the wider scientific and societal relevance of sociology. Instead of being a discipline capable of the larger perspective, sociology may ‘simply’ become a less influential and fragmented smorgasbord of subdisciplines.

Why are Nordic sociologists not providing diagnoses of society these days? What has happened to the desire to describe the wider sociocultural currents of the world we live in? Where indeed are the present-day Danish Sennett, the Finnish Rosa, or the Swedish Bauman?

These questions resurface every now and again (see Bertilsson, 2000, 2014; Hammershøj, 2008, 2015; Jacobsen, 2007; Kristensen, 2008; Otnes, 2008), yet without gaining any real traction. Fifteen years ago, Kristensen (2008) argued that it had become popular for sociologists to speak of their work as a ‘diagnosis of the times’ (as initially developed by Lars-Henrik Schmidt), indicating efforts in analysing ‘wider social trends and tendencies’. Though Kristensen was sceptical of the term ‘diagnosis’, thinking that it snuck into an unfortunate medical if not pathological discourse, he did not only see a rising tendency but also valued the underlying efforts in analysing society as a whole.

However, rather than an increase in what we could also call societal diagnosis, what we are witnessing is a sharp decline (but see Aas, 2013; Alvesson et al., 2017; Prieur and Savage, 2013). Due to growing tensions between a diagnosis of the times kind of sociology, or what in Germany has in different ways been conceptualized as Gesellschaftstheorie (König et al., 2013; Rosa and Oberthür, 2020) or Zeitdiagnose (Honneth, 1994), and that of the more popular ‘academic sociology’, the former is slowly losing out to the latter. This has led Bertilsson (2000, 2014) to speak of the ‘tragedy of sociology’. In Bertilsson's understanding, much like the classics of sociology, a broader brushstroke kind of sociology rather than an instrumental one is not only worthwhile, but that which justifies sociology altogether.

Still, the tragedy has its silver lining, and present-day Nordic sociology is flourishing through a growing specialization and subdisciplines. While this specialization pushes the subject of sociology forward, makes space for otherwise sidelined research topics, and thus enable colleagues to make new discoveries and develop exciting new theory, it nonetheless also marginalizes efforts in providing wider societal diagnoses. Although for example quantitative sociologists engaged in demographic mensuration and the growing cohort of Randall Collins-inspired micro sociologists do not see eye to eye in many aspects of scientific life, they may nevertheless be appreciated as kindred spirits. This is true if we zero in on their mutual inclination towards carving out a particular part of the world; to put it under meticulous scrutiny and thereby trying to describe and discuss the inner mechanics of what they are looking at. Though of great worth, seldom if ever do these studies say something more general about what is happening in society.

There are different explanations for the marginalization of societal diagnosis. It may be an indirect consequence of a specific statistical or situational approach to sociology, sociologists being so engrossed in numerical details or the interactional spirit of a given situation that they forget to look any further. More often though, it appears as a conscious choice shaped through a neo-positivism and/or neo-empiricist scientism that has swept across not just the Nordics, but the social sciences worldwide. Here, theoretical discussions of overall societal trends are often seen as purely speculative, empirically unsubstantiated, methodologically unsound, and even unscientific (see, e.g. Merton and Barber, 2011; Vaesen, 2021).

Such critiques are unfortunately quite ungenerous in their appraisal of the more speculative styles of theoretical sociology. If we take Rosa's (2013) sociological diagnosis of time and (late/post/hyper) modernity as an example, his work on ‘social acceleration’ might indeed not stand the test of Popperian falsification. It is probably not hard to find cases that negate his arguments about how present-day societies are like runaway hamster wheels, formed by the neoliberal advent of competition. This is correct, and Rosa would be the first to admit to this as he openly acknowledges the more speculative nature of his work and argues against the increasing sociological emphasis on quantification and objectivism (Rosa, 2019). Nevertheless, the point of Rosa's attempt to diagnose society is not to put forth incontestable facts and theories – nor is it, as Kristensen (2008) forewarned, a mere matter of transporting a clinical line of thinking into the social scientific realm of sociology. No. By putting forth self-admitted speculative interpretations and critiques of societal trends, the aim is not to be like doctors detecting cancer in patients. Rather, the intention is to open our eyes for possible new ways of understanding society and how wider structures, trends, discourses and so forth may be forming the lives we lead – to broaden our horizons as Bertilsson (2014) wants it. The societal diagnosticians’ primary intention, in other words, is not to be a comptroller of stats nor a curer of social diseases, but a curator of conversations of importance to all of us.

In essence, this is why it is such a shame that the diagnoses of the times strand of sociology has become increasingly absent from Nordic sociology today. Spoken in the popular terminology of impact, this is not only a matter of having a different kind of sociology. If done well, this strand of sociology ranks among the most used and cited within the field, and although supposedly speculative, its metrics remain supreme. Moreover, this is an impact that stretches far beyond scientific journals and conversations – a kind of impact most other sociologists could only dream of. The Beckers or Habermases of sociology have helped shape public ideas about the world and how to live in it in ways only economists can trump. Obviously, which is important to remember in a time where impact and outreach are widespread credos, sociological diagnoses are often of not only great sociological but societal use!

Sociology should be the home of the many and manifold, and this comment is not about decrying the value of current-day Nordic sociology. It is however about, yet again, reminding us of the worth of societal diagnosis and, hence, to push for its reinstatement. If not, more will be lost than gained. So yes, sociology can be many things, but it cannot not be interested in talking about the wider breaths of social life.

Wouldn’t you agree?