Unrealized Integration in Education,Sociology,and Society

Abstract

In the 2023 ASA presidential address, Prudence Carter delves into the landscape of U.S. society, tracing some of its historical progress and confronting contemporary social, economic, educational, and political challenges. Central to her argument is an exploration of the concept of “unrealized integration” and how it has hindered the nation’s march toward an inclusive, multiracial democracy. Carter describes and characterizes the current state of integration within education and society. Despite the widespread rhetoric of diversity in our organizations and institutions, she critiques its shallow application, exposing diversity’s inability to rectify imbalances of power- and resource-sharing. Incorporating the idea of “tipping points,” she discusses how civil rights movements, despite expanding representation and opportunity, have faced recurrent waves of political backlash and reversals. She contends that an erosion of social progress occurs when there is an imbalance in the pursuit of distributional equality (concerning material resources) and relational equality (involving social and cultural dynamics and processes that shape well-being). Additionally, she identifies three other crucial areas that warrant focus to pave the path toward realized integration within education and society. In a forward-looking call to arms, Carter underscores the imperative for sociologists to transcend epistemological and methodological boundaries; and she advocates for robust collaborations across the social sciences and humanities to harness the collective power of knowledge-generation and solution-building for pressing societal issues.

Photo Credit: Nick Dentamaro, Brown University

For more than a half century, the United States has undergone substantial transformations, which included expanded civil rights and individual liberties, as well as increased diversity and social representation in education, academia, and the workforce (see Acker 2006; Karabel 2005; Klarman 2004; Morris 1984). Strides toward progress, however, have not been immune to tension, resistance, backlash, and ongoing debates, as was the case in earlier cycles of progress and retreat of civil rights and political equality in late-nineteenth-century U.S. history after Reconstruction (Anderson 2015; Du Bois 1935b). Stubborn beliefs about the “other,” couched in comparatively more benign language of competition, individual choice, freedom, and liberty, motivate communities to reproduce thick social boundaries and tacitly accept racial discrimination and segregation, rampant class inequality, the oppression of gender and sexual minorities, religious intolerance, xenophobia, and more. These social forces, in turn, hinder resource- and power-sharing between historically oppressed and privileged groups, and consequently inhibit access to equality of opportunities (Blumer 1958; Bobo and Hutchings 1996; Craig, Rucker, and Richeson 2018; Sugrue 2016).

The current political landscape in the United States reveals a troubling regression of equal rights and social inclusion: from the erosion of voting and reproductive rights to the endorsement of businesses’ denials of services to LGBTQ+ individuals and couples, as well as the dismantling of affirmative action—a mechanism designed to broaden access to higher education for historically marginalized groups (Crenshaw 2006; Guinier 2015). Furthermore, several state boards of education and executive branches of state governments have enacted laws and regulations that banish multicultural curricula, restrict literature, and silence influential voices, including those of prominent sociologists (e.g., Patricia Hill Collins), from social studies, history, and literature. ¹

History informs us that the cycle of social progress and regression is not new. In the nascent stage of our discipline’s formation, sociologists documented the limits of democracy due to a combination of harmful social and economic forces supporting racial, gender, and class oppression in U.S. society throughout several eras. To the point, W. E. B. Du Bois’s (1935b) in-depth sociohistorical analysis of the Reconstruction era from 1865 to 1877 captured when a multiracial democracy—though not one fully inclusive along other lines, such as gender, religion, and sexuality—was viable. The 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, laying significant groundwork in shaping the legal landscape of civil rights in the United States in eras to come, especially in combating discrimination and ensuring equal protection under the law. Black men attained the right to vote; and there was a significant increase in their legislative representation in the southern states.

Yet, that period of viability for a multiracial democracy was short-lived. According to Du Bois, White southern capitalists, who gained greater congressional voting influence through the 15th Amendment’s enfranchisement of Black men, refused to pass legislation that would substantially augment the educational and economic capital of formerly enslaved people. They displayed little empathy for African Americans and were unwilling to distribute economic resources. Northern industrialists, who had been supporters of abolishing slavery and granting freedmen full voting rights, ultimately capitulated to their southern brethren’s economic concerns and compromised with them. The problems of the color line and white racial group position (see Blumer 1958) were too strong and “killed the idea of democracy,” deteriorating into what Du Bois described as a “corpse.” In other words, a momentary illusion of diversity shrouded the social fact that White southerners would eventually replace a modicum of black political equality with a racial caste system and “build inordinate [white] wealth on a foundation of abject [black] poverty” (Du Bois 1935b:494). By extension, they “killed” integration in the polity and economy and committed generations of African Americans to relative poverty (Baker 2022). ²

Other pioneers in sociology highlighted related challenges to democracy such as racialized violence, illustrated by the high incidence of lynching of Black men and women after slavery (Wells-Barnett 1895), and the overall exclusion of women from political and economic spheres (Addams [1920] 1964; Cooper 1892) in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. More contemporary scholars like Hammer (2020) pose parallel observations by examining critically the inherent contradiction between subjugation of colonial populations in the building of French rule and Western notions of freedom. Likewise, when the founding framers gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the U.S. Constitution, they did not envision the inclusion of people of color, women, and religious and sexual minorities in the political framework. Many of us who participate now in the existing U.S. democracy were not recognized as fully human by the colonial powers that formed the national government. Hence, we can neither ignore nor separate our current society and polity from the structures of domination that facilitated their establishment. ³

Democracy is a dynamic, socially constructed, and culturally influenced social phenomenon, which is predisposed to evolve over time (Allen 2023; Perrin 2014). Therefore, as a society advances, it is crucial to not only contemplate social solidarity, but also to consider the necessary components for the integration of social institutions and organizations that are essential for maintaining a deeply representative society (Allen 2023; Hammer 2020; Perrin 2014). In light of the contemporary political threats facing U.S. democracy, political theorist Danielle Allen (2023) contends that achieving a just society within it necessitates two fundamental components: political equality and organizations that facilitate fair resource distributions among different constituencies. Allen characterizes this form of democracy as “power-sharing liberalism.” Anna Julia Cooper (1892) presented similar arguments shortly after the first centennial observation of early American democracy. Cooper (1892:160) declared that diverse social groups actively participating in proposing solutions and making demands to address social issues lay the groundwork for positive social change, and “[e]xclusiveness and selfishness in a family, in a community, or in a nation were suicidal to progress.”

An imperative of the current climate of social and political division remains clear: we continue to need well-defined theoretical and conceptual frameworks, as well as empirical research, to effectively advance and maintain an inclusive democracy. Within the current context, it becomes increasingly apparent that sociology has not adequately predicted the cycle of social change and resulting “tipping points”—or rather, the thresholds at which significant social and economic shifts are followed by subsequent political backlash or reversals (see Card, Mas, and Rothstein 2008; Godsil and Waldeck 2020; Grier-Reed et al. 2021; Patashnik 2019). Today we stand at a critical juncture, one filled with both uncertainty and promise. On the one hand, a strategic (ultraconservative) political movement has vitalized anti-democratic, exclusionary segments of our society, while on the other, many of us are actively seeking to build and implement progressive conditions and practices needed to forge a truly inclusive society.

In prior research studies, I have examined the overlap between tangible and less tangible measures of inequality in education and society (Carter 2005, 2012; Carter and Merry 2019; Carter and Reardon 2014), which significantly informs the conceptual framework I develop here. In Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture, and Inequality in US and South African Schools, I examined the “material” and “sociocultural contexts” of schools, which I view now as domain-specific contexts within educational organizations of “distributional” and “relational” (in)equality, respectively. While historical and material conditions play a role in identifying overall inequality, less tangible indicators, such as cultural tools and codes embedded in hierarchical, race-, class-, or gender-inflected meanings within organizational practices shed light on the persistence of inequality and marginalization (see also Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent Holt 2019). I witnessed this firsthand in both South African and U.S. schools, which deemed themselves “integrated,” yet maintained highly disparate educational practices and academic outcomes for students by race. Contemporary schools and workplaces often champion diversity, but this commitment is frequently superficial and falls short of equality of opportunities and sharing power and resources if organizational actors do not attend to cultural and governance processes that encourage divisive social dynamics and stratification within organizations (Dobbin and Kalev 2022; Lewis and Diamond 2015; Ray 2019; Wallace 2023; Wooten and Couloute 2017).

In this address, I ask the following question: “What social, organizational, and institutional factors are required to bolster a society’s ability to embrace an inclusive, multiracial, and multicultural democracy?” Further, I propose that democracy’s progress should actively encourage integration across crucial social, economic, cultural, and political institutions. In envisioning how our society can move from a state of “unrealized integration” to “realized integration,” I introduce a conceptual framework that highlights elements needed to ensure equitable access to opportunities, power, and resources across various sectors, ultimately contributing to the overall collective well-being. First, I define and characterize the current state of integration within society and education. Following that, I elaborate on four dimensions of realized integration: (1) a balance of “distributional equality” (concerning material resources) and “relational equality” (involving social and cultural dynamics and processes that shape well-being); (2) transformations of the cultural and social processes that inhibit wholly sharing the creation and resources of society’s integral institutions and organizations; (3) incorporating multiple ways of knowledge and action; and (4) making substantive changes in inter- and intra-group, as well as personal, dynamics where groups and individuals collaborate toward common goals and welfare, even in the face of disagreement within a deliberative democracy. Throughout this framework, I will draw on social and empirical evidence from sociology, education, and other social sciences to support the arguments. In conclusion, I offer some final thoughts on a research agenda and emphasize the critical importance of addressing unrealized integration in our ever-evolving society.

Realized Integration: A Concept Defined

“Integration” is a topic of extensive research, intense legal deliberation, deep political divisions, and educational and social conflict, particularly in schooling and education, spanning more than a century (Cox 1948; Klarman 2004; Kluger 2011; Myrdal 1944; Walker 2000). A largely elusive practice in U.S. schools and residential neighborhoods despite the 1954 Supreme Court ruling on Brown vs. Topeka, KS Board of Education (Anderson 2010; Ayscue and Frankenberg 2016; Carter 2012; powell 2008), ⁴ integration was intended by its proponents to forge a more inclusive and just society and to dismantle historical divisions rooted in racial oppression that had systematically isolated African Americans, Asian Americans, Indigenous peoples, and Latinx peoples (Bonastia 2022; Kluger 2011). Since the 1970s, plaintiffs have brought a number of prominent lawsuits in communities throughout the United States, including in Texas, Michigan, Washington, and North Carolina, that have weakened the modicum of formally legal, potentially integrative actions initially sanctioned by the Supreme Court in 1954 (see also Sugrue 2016).

Diversity and desegregation efforts, nonetheless, have been hampered by their emphasis on demographic change and spatial proximity for the attainment of a semblance of a rainbow nation (Acker 2006; Anderson 2010; Ayscue and Frankenberg 2016; Carter 2012; Kelly and Dobbin 1998; Lewis and Diamond 2015; Tyson 2011). Because of the constrained adoption of deeply integrative practices by the gatekeepers of many social institutions and organizations, coupled with resistance from diverse groups (which varied depending on the specific social issue), the impacts of significant national redistributive economic, educational, and social policies, as well as judicial rulings, throughout the last two centuries have been precarious and prone to being overturned (Allen 2023; Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith 1997; Patashnik 2019; Weaver 2007). Ongoing legal and judicial battles between advocates and opponents of school integration as a means of equal opportunity exhibit this best. After the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, numerous cases brought by (mainly White and affluent) plaintiffs to oppose policies and practices meant to implement the ruling have prevailed. Arguably, these resistant lawsuits have preserved racial and class inequality and stratification in U.S. education.

Recognizing the consequences of implementing its feebler brethren—desegregation—scholars, who, in principle, champion equal opportunity and justice, have raised doubts about integration’s practicality, given how it has been exercised within U.S. and other national educational systems (Merry 2016; Walker 2000). Du Bois (1935a:335) even noted the tensions between segregated and extant understandings of the “mixed school” prior to Thurgood Marshall’s and other civil rights lawyers’ argument of the Brown case before the Supreme Court:

The Negro needs neither segregated nor mixed schools. What he needs is education. What he must remember is that there is no magic, either in mixed or in segregated schools. A mixed school with poor and unsympathetic teachers, with hostile opinion, and no teaching concerning black folk, is bad. A segregated school with ignorant placeholders, inadequate equipment, poor salaries, and wretched housing, is equally bad. Other things being equal, the mixed school is the broader, more natural basis for the education of all youth. It gives wider contacts; it inspires greater self-confidence; and it suppresses the inferiority complex. But other things are seldom equal, and in that case, Sympathy, Knowledge, and the Truth, outweigh all that the mixed school can offer.

Du Bois did not oppose integration, which he stated explicitly. Yet, he was not a fan of symbolically violent “mixed schools,” or rather “integration” characterized by cultural deference and assimilation that weighed on the self-confidence and esteem of African Americans. On the one hand, equal opportunity in twentieth-century U.S. society called for the eradication of a system where opportunities were denied to individuals based on race, gender, class, and other social categories. On the other hand, minoritized individuals’ admittances, and entry into schools, the workplace, communities, and other organizations required a mindset of openness, acceptance, and an ethic of caring and sharing. “A mixed school with poor and unsympathetic teachers, with hostile opinion,” and no attention to the material realities of “black folk” is just as nefarious as school communities with inadequate physical capital, poor salaries, and insufficient livable housing. Mixed social composition and spatial proximity do not necessarily equal integration. Consequently, the attainment of integration remains a controversial, challenging, and elusive practice to enact equality of opportunity. Moreover, persistent white resistance has impeded its complete realization (Kluger 2011; Roda and Wells 2013).

While the Brown v. Board of Education legal precedent entered “integration” into everyday language, the Supreme Court justices who ruled in its favor did not strongly prioritize it. Archival documents reveal that Associate Justice William Brennan distinguished between “desegregation” and “integration.” In a May 23, 1963, letter to Associate Justice Tom Clark on the ruling of Goss vs. Board of Education in the City of Knoxville (an opinion emerging from the Brown precedent), Brennan suggested Clark revise the language and use the word “desegregation” instead of “integration.” The Court had already ruled against the school board of Little Rock, Arkansas, in the 1958 Cooper vs. Aaron case where they intentionally used in the opinion the word “desegregated” instead of “integrated.” According to Brennan, they perceived that desegregation was a “shade less offensive” than integration. Therefore, Brennan encouraged similar language in Clark’s writing of the opinion for the Goss case. ⁵ In this letter, Justice Brennan indicated he understood that integration essentially entails more profound changes in schools and districts, which include bringing historically marginalized groups from the margins to the center of educational opportunity.

Subsequently, the evolution of U.S. schools, communities, and workplaces seemingly followed a “less offensive” path since the onset of the civil rights movement—expending significantly more energy and focus on numerical diversity, rather than addressing substantive organizational changes in equal treatment, curriculum, and leadership once significant numbers of historically oppressed groups entered them. Unquestionably, some changes occurred in the wake of popular discourse about multicultural curricula, diversity of frameworks, and other DEI efforts (Banks and Banks 2019; Dobbin and Kalev 2022). Yet, the depth, efficacy, and rootedness of such “work” are now reflected in the relative ease with which the political pushback and backlash has managed to annihilate it in some states and communities within a matter of a few years. As of August 2023, anti-civil rights and anti-inclusive legislation had arisen in at least 36 U.S. states (Schwartz 2021; Stout and Wilburn 2022).

Observations of the national political landscape starkly expose the unrealized state of integration in U.S. public education and society. Du Bois not only highlighted the inherent tension between segregation and integration’s debatably weak antecedent, desegregation, but he also noted the challenge of achieving a balance of what social scientists refer to as distributional and relational equality. Realized integration strives for equilibrium in the allocation of both types of resources to reduce stratification and flatten status hierarchies—be they based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, religion, sexual orientation and identity, or other key social categories.

Toward A Finer Balance Of Distributional And Relational Equality

Dimension 1

Sociologists are greatly familiar with the evidence around “distributional inequality” and “relational inequality” in various facets of society. “Distributional” refers to significant disparities and differences in the allocation of resources, opportunities, and outcomes patterned by population characteristics such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or another social category. ⁶ Social scientists in a variety of fields have produced an extraordinary number of high-quality studies on the correlates and causes of various inequalities (Baker 2022; Chetty et al. 2014; Duncan and Murnane 2011; Reardon 2011; Neckerman and Torche 2007). We know that because of high levels of racial and socioeconomic segregation, disproportionate percentages of Black, Latinx, and poor children grow up in low-income neighborhoods (Chetty et al. 2020; Chetty et al. 2014; Logan 2011; Reardon and Bischoff 2011).

We also know that the top 1 percent of earners earn 22 percent of all income in the United States (Piketty and Saez 2013), more evidence of a distributional income inequality. Of course, absolute progress has been made since the 1960s and 1970s, although tempered overall by increasing racial and gender inequality within the nation during the same period (Chetty et al. 2014; Piketty and Saez 2013). We see distributional inequality, for example, in nationally representative data of occupational segregation and segmentation by gender and race, and in educational attainment by ethno-racial categories. Specifically, White men dominate the top 10 highest-paying occupations in the United States, holding over 50 percent of positions in the top professional, managerial, and leadership jobs. In contrast, women across races and Black and Latinx men dominate the bottom 10 lowest-paying jobs, held primarily in the service industry (Zhavoronkova, Khattar, and Brady 2022).

Unjust laws and economic, social, and political practices laid the foundation for the gradients of between-group inequality in the United States. In terms of racial inequality, distributional inequality stems from accumulated disadvantages across U.S. history, rooted in slavery, colonialism, and conquest (Baker 2022; Fredrickson 1981; Katznelson 2005; Omi and Winant 1994; Takaki 1987). In addition, gender inequality emanates from a history of patriarchy and cultural norms established in the family and other domains of the private sphere, along with institutionalized sex discrimination at work, school, political arenas, and other facets of society (Collins 1990; Fenstermaker and West 2013; Glenn 2004; Hochschild and Machung 1989). ⁷

Undoubtedly, addressing distributional inequality and enhancing representation in organizations and institutions are essential from both a policy and a justice perspective. However, these objectives alone are insufficient to achieve genuine integration. Based on findings from a cross-national comparative study of different schools in the United States and South Africa, I have argued that while adequate materials and resources are critical and necessary, a focus on this domain of schooling alone fails to fully close opportunity gaps (Carter and Welner 2013) that foment inequality. Observations of organizational practices (see also Lewis and Diamond 2015; Tyson 2011) and intergroup dynamics exposed the integral role of social and cultural relations in terms of engagement, attachment, and placement within schools. Hence, I argued, it is imperative to also consider the “sociocultural context,” which encapsulates “relational inequality” within schools and other organizations.

Relational inequality pertains to unequal distributions of resources and opportunities created and reproduced by hierarchical relationships of power among groups within society and organizations (see Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt 2019). It comprises intricate social, cultural, and psychological dynamics that shape and perpetuate uneven allocations of resources and opportunities. Sociologists, specifically in the fields of culture, organization, and education, highlight the less tangible aspects of social closure, detachments, and other exclusionary behaviors that inhibit individuals’ and members of out-groups’ abilities to be centered in formally exclusionary settings once they join, due to social and cultural dynamics, codes, and politics (Burton and Welsh 2015; Lamont, Beljean, and Clair 2014; Schwalbe et al. 2000; Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt 2019).

A number of social processes feed into the phenomenon of relational inequality, ranging from group threat, fear, and prejudice (Blumer 1958; Craig and Richeson 2014); to social closure and opportunity hoarding (Tilly 1999); to claims-making within organizations that leads to the exclusion of historically disadvantaged social groups (Schwalbe et al. 2000; Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent Holt 2019); to symbolic boundaries or cultural tools groups use to delineate “us” from “them” and rationalize unequal resource distributions (Lamont and Molnár 2002). At the micro-level, status relations and position (Ridgeway 2011), microaggressions (Sue 2010), stereotype threat (Steele and Aronson 1995), and even affective processes such as apathy (Forman and Lewis 2015), boredom about past societal transgressions (Teeger 2023), and even racial fatigue (Feagin and McKinney 2005) contribute to social closure, bounded networks, and exploitation (Burton and Welsh 2015; Schwalbe et al. 2000).

In the broader conversation about social inequality, insufficient attention is given to how systemic and structural forces are maintained by challenging micro-level social and cultural processes difficult to change with policy. For example, perceptions of shifting demographics in the United States—that is, moving from a majority-White to a majority-minority nation—evoke greater explicit and implicit racial bias among White Americans (Craig and Richeson 2014). White individuals exposed to information about racial demographic shifts preferred relations with their own racial group over relations with minority ethnic groups; expressed more negative attitudes toward Latino, Black, and Asian American persons; and expressed more automatic pro-white/anti-minority bias.

By scrutinizing the evolution of, and imminent threats to, a range of pivotal laws, policies, and practices aimed at upholding principles of distributive equality and equal access to opportunities—such as school integration, voting rights, reproductive freedom, critical multicultural curriculum, affirmative action, marriage equality, and transgender rights, among others—we can discern a susceptibility rooted in the discord between material and relational conditions. This susceptibility is shaped by the influence of political movements intertwined with various micro-social processes (Patashnik 2019; Sugrue 2016).

Research in organizational culture, social psychology, and the sociology of the emotions suggests that if a case for the “collective heart” of any matter does not maintain empathic understanding and concern for social and material conditions (Forman and Lewis 2015; Teeger 2023; Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt 2019), then implementation will be weak, resistance will be strong to social change, and consequently, policies will be susceptible to quicker political erosion or dissolution (Allen 2023; Lewis and Cantor 2016; Weaver 2007 ). As I prepared this address, the voice of a sage 15-year-old from a prior research study (Carter 2012) echoed through my thoughts. Years ago, while in discussion with one of my research assistants at his school, “DeAndre” declared that if society does not reduce the “empathy gap,” it could not reduce achievement gaps. DeAndre invoked a connection between distributional (achievement gaps) and relational (empathy gap) inequality based on his experience as a student in a desegregation program at a school that had not learned how to fully integrate all of its students (Carter 2012). Differential learning experiences at DeAndre’s school inhibited a sense of belonging (Walton and Cohen 2007).

Research in the sociology of emotions has illuminated the impactful role played by cultural gatekeepers within our society, be it in schools, places of worship, or workplaces. These agents possess the power to reshape the narrative, bridging the empathy gap through intentional curricular design and emotional engagement. Teeger’s (2023) comparative study of curricular topics among South African learners, for instance, illustrates vividly how South African educators influenced students’ perceptions through the framing of world events. In her study, Teeger found that teachers bred feelings of boredom among learners about the history of apartheid, while their lessons on the Holocaust ignited interest and curiosity. This study has implications for the impact of emotions triggered by political and historical events on individuals’ behaviors, prompting consideration of how both educators and students can engage in actions influencing the material well-being of their fellow society members.

Without intensified efforts to build relational equality in our society—which includes the development of mutual cultural codes and ethics of caring within communities, organizations, and institutions, in addition to shared leadership, decision-making, and knowledge—then policies and practices that seek to ameliorate distributive inequality can be vulnerable and insufficiently rooted for long-term social and economic transformation (see Patashnik 2019).

Unrealized Integration And Sociology

Sociologists have developed ideas, theories, and frameworks about social differentiation and change regarding racial, class, and gendered formations. For much of the mid- to late-twentieth century, students of the discipline were introduced to the race relations cycle (Park 1950), assimilation theory (Gordon 1964), and subsequent theories that afforded agency to minoritized groups, albeit in some cases, ideas that pathologized racial minoritized folks (Treitler 2015). More contemporaneous theories and frameworks emerged, including oppositional culture and resistance theories (Giroux 1983; Ogbu and Simons 1998; Willis 1981); the establishment of ethnic enclave (Wilson and Portes 1980) and segmented assimilation (Portes and Zhou 1993) theory, with some critiques by Kathryn Neckerman, Jennifer Lee, and me (Neckerman, Carter, and Lee 1999); and critical race and intersectional theories and frameworks (Bell 2004; Bonilla-Silva 2006; Collins 1990; Ray et al. 2017).

Similar to the knowledge production about race, gender scholars have produced evidence of the structured nature of gender and its institutionalized character as a social phenomenon. Gender is not just about identity. Rather, it also pertains to institutionalized relational processes that affect distributional outcomes based on perceived sex as either male or female (Acker 2006; Fenstermaker and West 2013; Glenn 1999; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). While gendered dynamics, identity, and processes are not mutually exclusive from other social categories like race or socioeconomic status, which create interdependent and differential experiences within and across gender, a striking difference between gender and race phenomena, for instance, is how relational context has lent itself to disparate distributional outcomes.

For example, we have witnessed significantly different outcomes in how gender- and race-based affirmative action has played out in U.S. society. In the mid-twentieth century, selective colleges and universities excluded women, just as they did racialized minorities (Karabel 2005). Not only were women not admitted to programs in various disciplines, like sociology, which excluded the scholarship of women in the canon well into the 1970s, and still does to some extent, but women did not hold leadership roles in universities and professional and managerial spaces. In 1960, prior to the creation of any federal affirmative action policies, women made up only 35.3 percent of those receiving Bachelor of Arts degrees. By 1982, women were no longer underrepresented among degree recipients. Today women have surpassed men in college admissions and graduation rates. Notably, by 2012, White women outpaced White men’s enrollment in colleges and universities, with 72 percent of White women enrolled compared with 62 percent of White men. Women now consistently outperform men academically across all levels of schooling and exhibit a higher likelihood of attaining college degrees and pursuing enrollment in graduate programs (DiPrete and Buchmann 2013; Galán-Muros, Bouckaert, and Roser 2023). Furthermore, employment data reveal that White women earn more and have higher employment rates than do either Black women or men (http://bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2021/home.htm). In addition, studies reveal a positive correlation between the percentage of women in leadership in firms and their performances (Page 2019).

DiPrete and Buchmann (2013) examined a range of demographic, contextual, and attitudinal factors contributing to this gender disparity, and it is worth considering that the relational gap experienced by women under patriarchy might not be as pronounced as the disparities faced by Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students within the structure of white supremacy and anti-blackness. Today, social progress indicators of “inclusiveness” put the United States at 5 out of 169 countries on advanced education rates of women.The United States also ranks in the bottom third of nations (102 out of 169) in its treatment of, and the degree of violence against, racial and ethnic minorities (https://www.socialprogress.org).

This distinction may arise from the relatively broader and deeper social connections that exist between men and women, stemming from their roles as spouses, sisters, cousins, girlfriends, friends, and neighbors. They have greater social attachment and connections. Relational inequality was reduced in a way that could entail a different mindset around the inclusion of women and girls in various parts of society. As Ridgeway and Correll (2004:512) note: “Unlike many other social differences, gender goes home with you in that people are more likely to have relatives and share a household with adults or children of the other sex.” ⁸ Distributional equality, emboldened by the feminist revolution and stronger personal ties, has led, arguably, to a transformation of higher education that did not occur similarly for race (DiPrete and Buchmann 2013; Karabel 2005; Parker 2021). In contrast, limits to depth of care and social attachment to Black, Latinx, and Indigenous peoples, in addition to racist discourse about lack of merit, have led to a demise of race-based affirmative action, which did not occur in the same way for gender-based equality, in particular for White women (see Pierce 2012).

Social differentiation theory is perhaps one of the most unsettling yet realistic frameworks about our society’s ability to realize integration, especially when combined with the argumentation of critical studies scholars (Bell 2004; Bonilla-Silva 2006; Grant, Woodson, and Dumas 2020; Ray et al. 2017). As sociologist Jeffrey Alexander (1990:272) wrote, “While members of noncore groups may be extended full legal rights and may even achieve high levels of actual institutional participation, their full membership in the solidarity of the national community may never be complete.” Alexander discusses two axes of inclusion of historically marginalized and oppressed groups: the external, or environmental, factor, which pertains to society’s structures (e.g., the economy, polity, religion, and other systems); and the internal, or volitional, factor, which involves relationships and the affinity between “core groups” and “out-groups.” Alexander’s theory assesses the degree of inclusion of various ethno-racial groups in industrial societies throughout history based on the presence of “primordial complementarity” (which I read as a propensity for cultural connection and social attachment) between in- and out-groups in society, and the extent to which the latter is either included or excluded through some semblance of relatedness, assimilation, ethnic accommodation, or degrees of resistance and secession.

My conceptual framework on unrealized integration intersects with Alexander’s theory in that one of its main components—the balance between distributional (material) and relational (social, cultural, and psychological) conditions—parallels Alexander’s external and internal factors for the social location of out-groups in society. However, they diverge in three other aspects: first, in the differentiation between “inclusion” and “integration”; second, in the critical emphasis on centering a historical or traditional “core group,” as if it cannot be reconstituted; and third, in the exclusion of the notion of heterogenous shared power where the core comprises a social mosaic of individuals and groups in institutions and communities in the contemporary era. Despite being immersed in myriad contrary historical circumstances, realized integration, I propose, in contrast to multiple approaches of inclusion demanding the subordinance of ethno-racial, gender, and class groups to others, is a more advanced pathway to social progress, the reduction of gross inequality of opportunities, and social polarization. Scholars researching and writing in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, who navigated more extreme social, economic, and political dynamics in their time, presented similar arguments (Addams [1920] 1964; Cooper 1892; Du Bois 1935b; Wells-Barnett 1895).

I am aware that the evidence to support this framework is limited, especially considering the ongoing challenges in achieving a fully inclusive democracy in the United States that embraces all individuals across diverse markers, such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and immigrant status. At the same time, our studies and research reveal that the assimilative-accommodative-inclusive strategies have left societies vulnerable to either little progress or a reversion to past forms of suppression, marginalization, and oppression of others (Acker 2006; Bonilla-Silva 2006; Feagin 2001; Kelly and Dobbin 1998; Ray et al. 2017). A balance between distributional and relational equality is just one dimension of the realization of integration for equal opportunity and social justice. Next, I introduce three other factors for conceptual consideration of the actualization of integration in society.

Realized Integration: On Inclusion And Shared Power

Dimension 2

Realized integration, when achieved, engenders collective feelings “of” and not just “at” an institution or organization for historically excluded groups. Several empirical observations prompt and undergird this dimension of unrealized integration. First, a burgeoning body of research in the sociology of education, including my own, has documented how the experiences of historically underrepresented and racially minoritized students in relatively more middle- and upper-class, White-dominant schools reveal, paradoxically, both beneficial and adverse conditions for these students’ overall educational well-being (e.g., Carter 2012; Lewis and Diamond 2015; Lewis-McCoy 2020; Posey-Maddox 2019; Tyson 2011; Wallace 2023). In case studies of well-performing U.S. high schools, both majority-minority and White-dominant, I found statistically significant racial differences among stratified samples of students. In the affluent, White-dominant schools, Asian and White students were one and a half to twice as likely to be enrolled in at least one AP or honors class than were Black and Latino/a/x/e students. No such differences were found in the majority-minority schools, where all groups of students were equally likely to enroll in these courses (Carter 2012).

I found similar patterns in terms of students’ sense of belonging and degree of happiness with their schools: White and Asian students were significantly more likely to feel like a part of the school at the affluent, White-dominant schools, whereas Black students were significantly more likely to feel a part of the school at one of the two majority-minority schools (Carter 2012). Such findings are corroborated by prior research in sociology and psychology in both K–12 and higher education, where challenging social climates are found to have negative effects on students’ sense of belonging at their schools (see Hurtado and Carter 1997; Walton and Cohen 2007). Consequently, the conditions of exclusionary social and cultural dynamics in diverse organizations have motivated higher-education practitioners to extend the moniker from “diversity” to “diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and justice” (DEIBJ).

In 2020, the New York Times produced an infographic of the leaders of every major institution and their breakdown by gender and race, from the White House and Congress to the major leagues of every sport to the gatekeepers of culture and arts in television and publishing (Lu et al. 2020). Of the “most powerful people in America,” 922 are predominantly White and male. Even Asian Americans, who have the highest educational and income attainment, according to Census data, are significantly underrepresented in leadership (see also Warikoo 2022). This stunning infographic revealed that greater education and income mean little to institutional change if the diversification of society’s organizations and institutions primarily connotes representation with imbalanced power distribution. Liberal, equality-of-opportunity frameworks have approached the distribution of social and economic resources through admittance processes—that is, as diversity, which has limited ability to fundamentally reshape the core of U.S. organizations and institutions.

In the aftermath of the 2005 Gratz v. Bollinger Supreme Court decision—when former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor introduced the “25-year” timeframe for the eventual end of affirmative action, while still supporting some race-conscious admissions—legal scholar Derrick Bell (2003) argued that as long as policies aimed at rectifying social inequalities could align with the material interests of White individuals, they would be more likely to garner support. Justice O’Connor endorsed the idea of diversity as a valid justification for race-conscious admissions, but the Court has not extended the compelling state interest principle to reparative policies and practices for past discrimination. ⁹ Bell asserts that this divergence in support stems from the fact that diversity-based arguments, framed as compelling state interests, tend to be more acceptable to the broader population compared to arguments based on rectifying past injustices, which are often met with resistance (see also Berrey 2015). In June 2023, the Supreme Court reiterated that past harm and disadvantage to groups are not a compelling state interest. Hence, by law, U.S. society is stuck with a more diluted framework of representation (or diversity) instead of a wider dispersion of power and equality. Realized integration means that various constituencies and social classes are not simply in a community, organization, or institution but also of it, in the fullest sense.

Realized Integration As Epistemic Pluralism

Dimension 3

Fueling culture wars, some state legislators, as of this writing, have outlawed explicit teaching of U.S. history about white supremacy and structural racism. In Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Missouri, and Utah, local school districts and states have banned books that support the humanity of many. Emboldened by “parents’ rights” debates, public officials actively discriminate against and even criminalize LGBTQ youth and families. The extremes exist, such as the recent case in the Florida educational system, which created standards that teach students a sanitized version of U.S. slavery as “beneficial” to some who were enslaved, despite the historical record that portrays an unabashedly violent and inhumane “historical racial regime” with enduring consequences to our society (Baker 2022).

Realized integration encompasses multiple ways of knowledge-building, from epistemic diversity and various theoretical and conceptual frameworks within our discipline to a wide berth of curricular, literary, and cultural and scientific tools—some in tension with one another. In academia, and specifically in sociology, ongoing epistemic and methodological debates mirror analogous dynamics in general society (Carter 2022; Feagin 2001; Go 2017; Morris 2022; Romero 2020). Certainly, theoretical debates are intrinsic to the vibrancy of any discipline, as they drive refinement. Yet, an array of themes in previous ASA presidential addresses underscores a longstanding sociological issue. I refer specifically to how mainstream or traditional sociology departments, as well as wider academe, use cultural tools to perpetuate questionable boundaries of legitimacy, validity, and consequently, the assimilation of ideas into various disciplinary canons. For instance, some sociologists, perturbed by concepts, notions, and frameworks introduced by their peers, particularly women and individuals from racially minoritized backgrounds, have raised the fundamental query of whether a coherent “core” or conceptual unity still exists within the discipline (House 2019). Others have offered robust responses to this inquiry (Burawoy 2022; Go 2017; Itzigsohn and Brown 2015; Morris 2015). First, it is imperative to acknowledge the overt exclusion of these marginalized groups from the discourse, including the pioneering women sociologists of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries (see Author’s Note), despite their significant contributions to knowledge production (Deegan 2005). The early incarnation of the American Sociological Association and comparable, venerable scholarly societies did not embrace epistemic democracy.

Second, past and present gatekeepers of our institutions, organizations, and discipline have anticipated either assimilation or alignment with their perspectives on society and education, rather than critical examinations of the limitations of their theories and frameworks (influenced by extant social forces). That is, they fail to be reflexive and even consider why individuals from different social, economic, and political contexts would contest some established perspectives. One result of this intellectual social closure in education and disciplines has been the formation of alternative learning and scholarly spaces, respectively (Ladner 1973). A critical mass of educators and researchers assert that these ethnocentric knowledge enclaves are better for the holistic well-being of historically excluded groups, because of the limitations of desegregation and diversity practices (Bell 2004; Berrey 2015; Merry 2016; Ray et al. 2017; Reyes 2022). Morris’s The Scholar Denied (2015) documents the exclusion of Du Bois from the sociological canon, blocked by one of the “fathers” of the discipline, Robert Park, because they diverged in opinions. Contemporary sociological studies have pushed society (or sociology?) beyond bankrupt, culturally deficit, colorblind, and individualistic discourse to discussions of the adverse effects of white supremacy, patriarchy, class exploitation, structural inequalities, heterosexism, and transphobia (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 2006; Collins 1990; Compton, Meadow, and Schilt 2018; Feagin 2001; Morris 2022; Ridgeway 2011; Romero 2020).

Another result of the intellectual social closure in education and the social sciences has been what I call “epistemic flight” and the formation of alternative learning and scholarly spaces, which may occur among the historically privileged and the marginalized in terms of ways of knowing. Historian of education Jarvis Givens (2021) has documented compellingly how “fugitive pedagogy” emerged in segregated Black communities and schools, where more penetrative knowledge and learning about social, cultural, and economic reality more fully captured the Black American experience. Similarly, sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology, and other disciplines have experienced significant splits and spin offs from the mainstream of the discipline due to the denial of scholarship by thinkers and researchers who do not tow the party line in terms of epistemology and methodology. In several notable cases, the scholarship and research emanating from those spaces have gained significant popular appeal, ¹⁰ yet many select schools, departments, and programs still fail to embrace this epistemic diversity (Go 2017; Itzigsohn and Brown 2015; Romero 2020).

To be sure, a critical mass of educators and researchers assert that despite these ethnocentric knowledge enclaves, historically excluded groups strategically fostered environments of epistemic pluralism for their leadership and all our learning (Bell 2004; Berrey 2015; Givens 2021; Ray et al. 2017; Walker 2000). Studies support the positive values of gender- and race-segregated education spaces in terms of performance, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Carter 2012; Goldsmith 2004). Furthermore, skeptics argue that it is unrealistic to expect transformation within organizations and institutions if the practices threaten the material interests of historically privileged groups (Bell 2004; Reyes 2022).

But foremost, spaces that center epistemic diversity recognize the full humanity of all individuals, engage idea systems that aim to suppress or dehumanize others, and allow room for spirited debate and disagreement. In contrast, “white flight,” as practiced in U.S. K–12 schools, or through outmigration and the formation of alternative spaces because of the discomfort induced by a wider “opening” and envelopment of previously excluded thought and scholars, reproduce and reinforce inequality. If sociology and other disciplines care to make significant contributions to and effect change at the redistributive, reparative, or restorative levels—to reduce the rampart inequality that so many of us research—then we need to attend to the relational, to the dissolution of epistemic social closure, to realize any semblance of effective educational, professional, and other organizational forms of integration in our society and field.

Realized Integration And Disagreement

Dimension 4

At the core of the practices of realized integration is the ability to treat and reduce social conflict in the aftermath of centuries of exclusion, discrimination, and marginalization. By that, I mean realized integration entails deliberations that afford ample opportunities to address historical and contemporaneous disagreements and conflicts between in- and out-groups about ethics and morals, democratic processes, and operations. Furthermore, it enables participants to manage and cope with differences in perspectives. Even within groups, shared values and visions do not always mean we will agree on how to achieve the ultimate goals. The last dimension is characterized by its attention to reconciling conflicts and tensions between in-groups and out-groups and managing differences of perspectives and diverse thought even within the former out-groups.

Returning to social differentiation theory, I contend that besides the rather problematic usage of “noncore,” and I read Alexander to mean “nondominant groups,” social groups that do not hold much power in society’s organizations and institutions, or rather have less of it, may be less likely to achieve full membership. And the question is why? What deeper social-psychological issues would motivate social actors and agents to have an enduring taste for the exclusion of other human beings and deny the actualization of a multiracial, multicultural society? First, we will need to attend to the relationship between social-psychological well-being and institutions and organizations, going back to Blumer’s seminal work on prejudice and group threat, a framework that has spun a number of empirical studies (e.g., Bobo and Hutchings 1996). In experimental studies, social psychologists continue to reveal how fear and group threat lower White individuals’ feelings of connection to various minoritized groups—feeling the least connected to Latinx people (Craig and Richeson 2014; Craig et al. 2018). Fomented by politics, religion, and generalized feelings of superiority (Bonilla-Silva 2006; Whitehead and Perry 2020), competitiveness and fear of encroachment on individual choice motivate communities to accept social segregation and consequently restrict access to opportunities significantly for historically excluded groups.

Sociologists Natasha Warikoo’s and Sean Drake’s books, Race at the Top (2022) and Academic Apartheid (2022), respectively, explore anxiety in affluent Asian American and White communities and the influence of selective colleges and universities in them. Logics of meritocracy have existed in the U.S. myth since the early twentieth century, and in the past 50 years, they have been transmitted in a more structured and orthodox manner transnationally via immigrant parents who hail from societies where university admissions heavily rely on standardized test scores. As we confront this reality, we must also address the institutional responsibilities of higher education in diffusing current anxieties and diminishing the adverse social consequences of cutthroat competition.

Integration’s realization requires change in the macro-cultural logic about the tensions between education as a public and private good (Labaree 1997). An emphasis on education as a private good has led to a strongly competitive, individualistic ethos in our society, which impedes the ability to deepen reparative policies for historically underrepresented groups. Right now in the United States, the dominant achievement ideology is less about how educational institutions, for example, can elevate the well-being of many, and more about what “I” can do to attain as much as I can, even if that means acquiescence to forces that engender moral injury (Levinson 2015)—that is, disagreeing with segregation but entertaining it if it means my housing, education, and job opportunities will be better.

The conflict of education as a private good and education for public good is political and social. We can see it clearly in a 2019 Pew Research Center poll (Horowitz 2019). Slightly more than a third of White respondents favored racially mixed schools as opposed to the local ones in their communities, which were marked heavily by racial and socioeconomic segregation. The opposite was true for Black Americans, among whom 68 percent preferred racially and ethnically diverse schools. Latinos and Asian Americans were split down the middle, with half of each group favoring diverse schools. Political identity drives a good deal of this: less than 25 percent of Republicans preferred diverse schools to local ones, compared to nearly 60 percent of Democrats. Without sustained contact with one another, the next generation, like many of our leaders, will not learn to coexist with those who are different from themselves; or to find common ground in the sea of diverse ideas and worldviews. I am aware of no other institution like education, besides media and religion, with the scale, capacity, and power to aid society’s members in their ability to transcend divisive social boundaries, encourage relational equality, and as a result, approximate a fairer distribution of access to resources and opportunities.

Disagreement Within Groups

Finally, reconciling conflict in terms of intergroup dynamics must avoid excessive reductionism and prioritize the multifaceted, intersectional nature of individuals’ experiences and ideas. Tensions and threats to consensus arise within historically excluded groups, too. In a 2022 article titled “Building Resilient Organizations,” Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the Working Families’ Party and an early leader in the Black Lives Matter movement, discusses the challenges within progressive organizations and movements. Mitchell highlights the concept of “maximalism,” where ideologically progressive individuals view anything less than the most idealistic stance as a betrayal of core values. This approach, he argues, falls short in understanding that achieving full integration of a society’s institutions requires embracing disagreement and conflict, even within one’s own community. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that not all organizational processes and procedures are inherently negative. Leadership and accountability standards and structures, for example, may need refinement, but these practices, in principle, are not necessarily fundamentally flawed or harmful to pursue (Mitchell 2022).

Organizationally, debates over processes, selection, and governance present a challenge as diverse schools of thought intersect. The American Sociological Association, like many, grapples with these debates regarding the allocation of resources, leadership qualifications, department rankings, and hierarchies related to knowledge, scholarship, and methodologies.

I argue that achieving sustainable multicultural democracy necessitates both historically marginalized and privileged groups avoiding identity-based reductionism and instead seeking new ways to foster substantial cooperation with one another.

In critiquing neoliberalism, Mitchell questions the use of identity as a mere placeholder or justification for political or organizational decisions. He contends that identity should not be used as a proxy for either ideological or strategic legitimacy. Marginalized individuals should not be simplistically regarded as carriers of undeniable strategic truth; and historically privileged ones should not be oversimplified or summarily dismissed (Mitchell 2022).

Many of our research studies of inequality, power, and dominance emanate from macro-level analyses; attention is needed for meso- and micro-level processes in our organizations and institutions once access to opportunities and resources are spread more normally. I would add to frameworks on racialized and gendered organizations (Acker 2006; Ray 2019; Ridgeway and Correll 2004; Wooten and Couloute 2017), for example, to include considerations of how we use identity and social location as proxies and signifiers for shared values and idea systems, to avoid the risk of misunderstanding the breadth of heterogeneous thought and behavior within social groups.

Individuals have different moral, religious, and cultural beliefs, and these differences can lead to conflicts when it comes to policy and practice choices. In all instances, we risk essentialism, marking individuals as “heretics” or even inauthentic or “acting like the oppressor or privileged,” in spite of sharing global visions. Consequently, divergences occur in our understandings of “us” versus “them,” and how we construct organizational and institutional work. Among many branches of sociology, including the critical studies branch, we often either unintentionally or unconsciously elide the multiple, interlocking identities that individuals and group members embody (Collins and Bilge 2016; Harris and Leonardo 2018).

How can we foster resilient, integrated organizations amid the palpable disagreements regarding the material conditions of society? To address this challenge, we must bridge disciplinary boundaries and turn to our colleagues who are political theorists and scientists. Within their discourse, they grapple with the concept of “deliberative democracy.” In their book Democracy and Disagreement (2009), Gutmann and Thompson assert that disagreement is an intrinsic component of democratic politics and should be tackled through public deliberation. They contend that democratic decisions gain legitimacy when they incorporate diverse perspectives and interests, particularly in pluralistic societies. This necessitates an open, dialogic, and often uncomfortable decision-making process. Deliberative democracy materializes when participants engage in informed, impassioned dialogue and debate to arrive at collective decisions. It promotes open discussion, active listening, and respectful consideration of diverse viewpoints (Allen 2023; Cooper 1892).

Drawing from Habermas’s concept of deliberative democracy, ¹¹ Mouffe (1999) provides a critique of the liberal ideals underpinning deliberative democracy. She argues that achieving rational consensus without some degree of exclusion is a utopian endeavor in a society where antagonism is inherent in human relations. Mouffe suggests we acknowledge the constitutive role of power in society. Thus, the primary question of democratic politics becomes not how to eliminate power, but how to establish forms of power that align with pluralistic democratic values (Mouffe 1999:753). Mouffe’s idea of “agnostic pluralism” embraces conflict and the acknowledgment that complete dissolution of social boundaries, distinguishing “us” from “them,” is improbable.

The reason for introducing this debate is to avoid an overly idealistic view of what social life within communities, education, and other organizational spaces might entail if integration were fully realized. Respectful disagreement, especially in the realm of politics and self-interest, cannot be taken for granted. Nevertheless, society faces the risk of losing itself if our social practices drift further from the pursuit of a common, pluralistic good that propels us toward more integrative practices. Additionally, it is imperative to recognize that other social and cultural processes must operate within our schools and communities. This includes a move toward deeper civics education and empathic understanding (Carter 2012; Dewey 2017; Hess 2009; hooks 2014; Nussbaum 1998). Deliberate socialization in families, communities, work and religious settings, schools, and colleges and universities, to name a few, which broadens awareness and tolerance of social, cultural, and moral differences, should facilitate and enhance efforts to promote integrative practices in a pluralistic society.

Future Directions And Conclusion

After delivering my public talks, it is not uncommon for some to misinterpret my message and to assume I overlook the remarkable strides in social progress that human history has witnessed. Others, feeling overwhelmed, may perceive the challenges of our society as insurmountable. While it is undeniable that modern civilization has made significant strides away from its brutal and violent past, we must differentiate between absolute and relative progress. This conceptual distinction is crucial, as it sheds light on the persistent group-level disparities stemming from historical and present-day disadvantages based on race, class, and gender. These disparities hamper unrealized integration by maintaining gaps in opportunities and resources that inhibit participation of many individuals in various mobility-enhancing organizations and institutions, such as neighborhoods and schools (Chetty et al. 2020; Reardon 2011).

Notably, some scholars adopt a more pessimistic stance, positing that real change requires a complete overhaul of our existing systems (Bell 2004; Grant et al. 2020; Ray et al. 2017). They argue that attempts to reform current institutions are exercises in futility. Therefore, my conceptualization might be construed as unduly optimistic or a challenge to the autonomy of diverse social groups. Grounded in my evaluation of numerous studies, and influenced by a normative standpoint favoring integration, I assert that interdependence and flexible boundaries stand as paramount social mechanisms essential for achieving comprehensive inclusivity within a democracy. This approach allows for the simultaneous coexistence of a multitude of potentialities and realities. We cannot and will not achieve the degrees of shared power and resources without realizing integration, as I have defined it here, in critical facets of society.

Moreover, our world is currently ensnared in crisis. Our planet’s health is deteriorating at an alarming rate, while escalating political and social divisions erode the very fabric of social harmony. In this precarious juncture, I implore fellow sociologists to reflect on whether we should perpetuate the status quo in our roles as scholars, researchers, and educators, or whether it is time to expand our horizons toward more interventionist practices. This invites a holistic exploration of the intricate interplay between resource allocation and the nurturing of humanistic ethics. Our mission transcends national boundaries and state policies, extending into the civil sphere and reaching across diverse demographics, from rural communities in Louisiana and Florida to bustling metropolises like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and to smaller communities in the Plains states and Midwest and onto other continents. Central to our endeavor is not merely research but also more integration of research and applied work that critically scrutinize the fine balance between achieving distributional and relational equality—some might argue for equity, or dignity, or recognition (Ladson-Billings 2006; Lamont 2018; Tomaskavic-Devey and Avent Holt 2019). Importantly, this is not a solitary mission for sociology to undertake. Rather, it beckons us to engage in interdisciplinary collaborations, partnering with other social scientists and practitioners to embark on bolder scientific and educational expeditions.

To embark on this transformative journey, we might first explore the production of “transformative leadership” within institutions and organizations (Shields 2017), cultivating change agents with a profound comprehension of the historical, economic, and political forces that have shaped our societies. These individuals navigate the intricate landscape of their organizations, diligently striving for fairness and justice. Their pursuit is underscored by internal collaboration, power-sharing, compromise, and inclusive governance (Allen 2023; Guinier 2015), all working toward the realization of societal integration through innovative means. Perspectives rooted in macro-structural analysis, along with those of political theorists, sociologists, and scholars of social movements (Allen 2023; Morris 1984; Perrin 2014; Putnam 2000), emphasize the profound importance of cohesion and care at global, national, state, and local levels. Beyond our immediate circles, the depth of care resonates in our everyday lives, underscoring its crucial significance.

Within sociology, an unwavering commitment to embracing epistemic diversity proactively is also essential to dismantling the hierarchy of knowledge production. Traditional and mainstream sociologists need not perceive emerging ideas from different schools of thought as threats, especially when fortified by in-depth, rigorous, or careful research. Similarly, proponents of newer paradigms should recognize the strengths of existing frameworks. This, of course, does not negate the importance of robust debates; rather, it underscores how diverse, rigorous discourses and ideas collectively refine our understanding and innovation (e.g., Hong and Page 2004; Page 2019). The mosaic of the sociological imagination beautifully mirrors myriad interpretations that society’s members bring to the world. By broadening our epistemological and methodological perspectives and valuing an array of sociological approaches—particularly those within the realms of public and policy sociology—we can amplify the educative impact and reach of our field.

In closing, I offer four promising pathways for the study of macro-level and systemic inequalities, informed by collaborative synthetic analyses with my colleagues Andrew Nalani and Hiro Yoshikawa (Nalani, Yoshikawa, and Carter 2021). First, it is imperative that our field embraces applied research more wholeheartedly and integrates it better into our training programs. Such programs have the potential to help emerging leaders (our students) who move out into various spheres of innovation and governance to generate insights that inform policy and guide practice. The annals of sociological research have had significant influence on movements and policies, particularly within the realms of education, poverty, housing, and family. This is exemplified by the scholarship and research of James Coleman in the 1960s to that of William Julius Wilson, Joe Feagin, Kathryn Edin, Sarah McClanahan, Matthew Desmond, Tressie McMillan Cottom, and others throughout the late-twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries.

Influencing social behaviors and focusing on relational equality pose challenges because of individual freedoms. Nevertheless, second, we should examine specific institutions that foster socialization conducive to enriched civic engagement and exposure to diverse social, cultural, and political perspectives. Institutions such as education, culture, arts, media, and religion are pivotal arenas to explore in this pursuit. Next to the family, these are some of the largest drivers of meaning-making and idea systems in society (Apple 2012; Bourdieu 1977; Edgell 2012; Meyer 1977). In particular, I stress the potential import of centering more scholarship on the sociology of religion. Although not quite Goffmanian “total institutions,” evangelical and conservative Christian churches, for example, are critical sites of meaning-making in the United States and around the world, where individuals are subjected to extraordinary social, political, and moral messages about the “other,” and where indoctrination and forms of social control, and in some cases, all-encompassing and highly regimented ways of life, are encouraged (Butler 2021; Hochschild 2018; Whitehead and Perry 2020). Religious institutions, which, perhaps, may have been discounted or ignored too much by sociology and liberal academia, have significant effects on the lives of the individuals attending them, as well as their voting and other political behaviors, which have consequences for the democracy.

Third, in tandem with these efforts to attain an integrated, multiracial, inclusive democracy, we must place a renewed emphasis on fortifying social movements and civil rights organizations that aptly intertwine evidence with advocacy and policymaking. My colleagues and I have documented several cases where this kind of partnership and collaboration between movements and equitable policy change have worked in various communities around the globe—from which we can learn more for application in the United States (Nalani et al. 2021). Borrowing from this work, I offer a quote by a current leader of the Poor People’s Campaign, Reverend William J. Barber II, who has been dubbed a modern-day Martin Luther King because of his deep commitment to the reduction of poverty. Reverend Barber (2019) noted powerfully that “One of the quickest ways for a movement to lose its integrity is to be loud and wrong. . . . Researchers help to protect the moral integrity of a movement by providing sound analysis of the facts and issues at hand.”

Strengthening these organizations can propel transformative change by harnessing research to underpin persuasive arguments that resonate with policymakers and the wider public. By aligning sociological insights with the strategic goals of these movements, we can amplify the impact of evidence-driven advocacy for a more equitable and just democracy. Research has revealed how some social movements and organizations have translated their resources into actual political power (e.g., Butler 2021; Milkman and Voss 2004; Patashnik 2019). Still, sociology requires more research to focus on uncovering how organizations and campaigns generate collective conditions that allow strategic leadership and sustained coalitions that would result in reconfigurations of political, organizational, and interactional power (Nalani et al. 2021).

Similarly, our commitment extends to a fourth consideration: contributing our research expertise to legal cases and actions aimed at reducing distributional and relational inequality. Given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court and our divisive political climate, this goal may seem less doable at some levels. Nevertheless, various local, state, and national agencies, public-service attorneys in the justice and other arenas, private employers and corporations, and school districts, for example, need our help as researchers and expert witnesses to provide observations, findings, and rigorous analysis into legal proceedings meant to uphold equality of opportunities, principles of fairness, and adherence to the law and the Constitution.

As we traverse these uncharted territories, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to expand the frontiers of sociological understanding. Epistemological debates often categorize humanistic and philosophical disciplines as dealing with “ought’s” rather than “is’s,” while sociology focuses on empirical questions about how things work (Becker 1996:54). Yet, multidimensional social problems that threaten the livelihoods and well-being of many individuals and communities require multipronged solutions from the social sciences and humanities. Rather than limiting itself to describing and explaining current events in the United States and elsewhere around the world, American sociology can expand its impact by engaging in scholarship, research, and teaching to advance societal progress and eliminate oppression and marginalization. By embracing a diversity of thought, methods, and perspectives, and by nurturing the integration of research, policy, and practice, we stand poised to enhance the educative power of our field. In the process, we pave a way toward a future where the attenuation of both relational and distributional inequalities stands as a cornerstone of social progress and the ultimate realization of integration in society.