Challenging the sociological canon: An analysis of theoretical practices in Norwegian sociology

Abstract

In recent years, the sociological canon has come under scrutiny from various perspectives advocating for greater theoretical diversity, including calls to demasculinize and decolonize the discipline’s theoretical repertoire, and urging for an updated and more relevant theoretical toolbox to understand contemporary societies. This article critically examines the canon and its role within the discipline by mapping out all entries in sociology reading lists (N = 2623/120) at Norwegian higher education institutions in 2019, a material providing unique insights into the dominant trends of which theorists and theories contemporary sociologists consider most relevant. The results indicate a persistent dominance of traditional theoretical frameworks and strives to upkeep the canon’s enduring significance. There is also evidence of a plurality of theoretical practices working to reconstruct or (tacitly) reject the canon. However, the article also advocates for a more radical reorientation of sociological theory and training; not necessarily by doing away with classical and modern ‘canonized’ theorists and theories but depriving them of their hegemonic role in the shaping of sociological thought. Instead, sociology professors and students should develop more flexible theorizing capabilities that are better suited to analysis of contemporary social phenomena and where no text or author enjoys unquestioned ‘free passes’.

The lasting heritage of ‘the sociological canon’

The discipline of sociology continues to nurture the legacy of its founding fathers (Connell, 1997; Guggenheim and Krause, 2012; Melcher, 2024), often arguing for their enduring relevance in the study of contemporary social phenomena (Alexander, 1987; Mouzalis, 1995). The hegemonic position of the classics is most evident in the concept of a ‘sociological canon’, which refers to the list of sociological theorists and their works whose enduring value for the discipline is widely agreed upon, accepted, and embraced by the broader field of sociologists (Guggenheim and Krause, 2012). Connell (1997) argues that except for psychoanalysis, no other discipline has taken ‘such an intense interest in the writings of a small group of putative founding fathers’ (p. 1515).

This article critiques the dominance of the ‘classical tradition’ in contemporary Western sociological thought by elaborating on and developing emerging criticism of the discipline’s continued emphasis on the value of its established ancestral gallery. Relying on empirical evidence – an analysis of sociological reading lists, which both reflect and construct the sociological theory tradition – the dominant position of the ‘classics’ is scrutinized for the biased and homogeneous biographical composition of their authors, who are almost exclusively White, male, Western Christians. Moreover, the article discusses how the reliance on the classical tradition may hinder the discipline’s exploration of new theoretical avenues and the development of sociologists’ theorizing capabilities.

An abundance of papers addresses the nature and need for sociological theory, including reflections on how to reinvigorate it, even separate journals. These papers are predominantly theoretical, developing arguments from the authors’ experiences and readings as practicing sociologists, rarely referring to empirical materials. When empirical material is referenced, it is anecdotal and used for illustrative purposes. In this article, an alternative approach is employed. It analyses the sociological reading lists as to conduct a systematic empirical examination of what kind of and how sociological theory is applied in the everyday practices of contemporary sociology. Key questions include: Which sociological theorists and theories are deemed important by the discipline’s practitioners? What is the role of the sociological canon? How is theory applied in everyday sociology as evidenced in the lecture halls?

Specifically, the research problem is investigated through an empirical analysis of one ‘national’ sociology community – Norwegian sociology, argued to be a representative case study (Yin, 2009: 46f) of Western sociology – and its relationship with sociological theory and its canon as evidenced by the reading lists composed by professors for student use. The article represents a pragmatist approach to sociological theory (Swedberg, 2014), analysing ‘theory’ as an ‘object’ and a resource that agents may activate in various ways in their everyday practices as sociologists. Thus, the objective of this article is to critically examine current theoretical practices within the sociological discipline and discuss how these practices address (or fail to address) criticisms of being predominantly Western, White, and male, and otherwise representing a conservative approach to sociological theory. A secondary objective is to contribute to the ‘theorizing’ of sociological theory, advocating for more empirically grounded analyses of approaches to. A final objective is to better connect research on sociological theory with research on the pedagogy of sociological theory in higher educational institutions.

Approaches to sociological theory and its canon

Numerous papers explore how to conceptualize sociological theory and address the discipline’s purported perpetual state of theoretical crisis (e.g. Mills, 2000 [1959]; Mouzalis, 1995; Swedberg 2014: 14). This article does not aim to extend these definitional discussions or offer any overall solutions for improvement but focuses more narrowly on the critiques raised in recent decades regarding the sociological canon’s Western, White, and male bias, its conservative function, and its alleged restriction of the discipline’s theoretical scope and potential for studying contemporary social phenomena.

Traditionally, sociological theory – across its many variations – has been characterized by its reliance on a number of key authors and their seminal texts. These works are chosen for their invaluable contributions to the discipline, both as ‘founding fathers’ fundamental to its initial development and for their lasting relevance in sociological studies. This collection of essential works and authors constitutes the sociological canon, a metaphor likening it to holy scriptures in religion, signalling their enduring importance and role in establishing a robust tradition of scientific thought.

The adequacy and relevance of the sociological canon have been fervently debated (Burawoy, 2024; Connell, 1997) in what are referred to as the ‘canon wars’ (Guggenheim and Krause, 2012: 113). This article does not aim to provide a full historical overview of these discussions but to examine the canon’s de facto role in today’s sociological discipline.

Many sociologists view the presence of the canon positively, even if they hold certain canonical works closer to their hearts than others. For example, Mouzelis (1997) argues that the classics, despite being outdated in their empirical accounts, remain relevant due to the perspectives and conceptual tools they offer, which still hold value for understanding contemporary society. The enduring value of the classics is also illustrated by the works of prominent sociologists who often rely on reading and reinterpreting earlier classics. For instance, Parsons’ (1937) general theory of action, Habermas’ (1987 [1981]) theoretical analysis of communicative action, and Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory all build on intimate readings and discussions of their predecessors works. The Newtonian statement, ‘if I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’, aptly applies to sociology.

Another argument for preserving the canon is its historical role in the discipline and its function in establishing sociology as community of shared knowledge. According to Stinchcombe (1982), one of the functions of the classics is to serve as ‘rituals to express the solidarity and common concerns of sociology as a discipline’ (p. 1).

Thus, the sociological canon remains important in Western sociology. It is nearly impossible to identify a professional sociologist who is unaware of Marx, Weber, Durkheim’s contributions or denies their significance to the discipline.

Preservation and plasticity

The concept of a canon suggests a collection of theorists and texts with undeniable and enduring value. To many sociologists, the canonical theorists and their works possess an almost objective and taken for granted quality. Parker (1997) remarks the ‘breathtaking failure on sociology’s part to apply the social constructionist perspective to itself!’ (p. 124). He finds it ‘[p]aradoxically [that a discipline] which debunks everything else by socializing whatever it studies deifies and reifies a tiny number of individuals’.

However, several papers have detailed that the structure of the sociological canon is far from solid. Numerous reviews have shown that its composition has evolved since the discipline’s foundational period in the late 19th century. According to Connell (1997), the canon’s construction varies across time and space, largely responding to societal influences external to the discipline rather than internal academic developments. Abrutyn (2013: 135) discusses Sorokin’s (1928) list of important sociological theoreticians, noting that ‘[n]early every theorist he considers important and contemporary would be unrecognizable to sociologists today . . ., except for Spencer, Durkheim, and Marx’. Abrutyn (2013) also refers to Sorokin’s criticism that Marx’s ‘normative or critical theories may be important as humanists, but lack utility in scientific research’ (p. 135). So spoken, and Marx largely disappeared from the U.S. sociological canon until his resurgence in textbooks around the 1970s.

Other reviews similarly emphasize the sociological canon’s plasticity and detail the many interesting cases of how sociologists have entered, left, and returned to the ranks of outstanding sociologists (Abrutyn, 2013; Connell, 1997). Many of these cases are highly instructive for understanding the historical development of the discipline. For instance, Morris’s (2015) biography The Scholar Denied about Du Bois tells a story of structural racism, personal ambition, and rivalry, where U.S. sociologist Park and the Chicago school gained credit for sociological innovations that, according to Morris, should rightly have been attributed to Du Bois.

The critique of the canon

Intellectual discussions on the sociological canon have intensified since the turn of the century, and according to Burawoy (2024), a ‘battle rages over what to do with these canonical figures’ (p. 99). The critique has largely centred on two lines of argument: the canon’s predominantly male and its Western/White and eurocentric composition. Alatas and Sinha (2017) argue that female theorists have been systematically ignored, reflecting an accompanying neglect of gendered topics and themes in sociology. This oversight has rendered women invisible in the field—not because they did not exist (see Furseth, 2024), but because male theorists and academic institutions never gave them a platform. Stacey and Thorne (1985) highlight the fact that other disciplines have more effectively acknowledged female perspectives. The male bias is evident in lecture halls, as shown by Hall’s (1988) survey of introductory sociology textbooks.

Parallel discussions on the sociological canon’s Western, and predominantly ‘white’, character has now come to the fore (Alatas, 2021). The ‘whiteness’ relates to the ignorance of Black sociologists and their works in narratives of the discipline in the Western world, most striking in the US case (Bhambra, 2014), but also the omittance of non-Western sociologies in the international field of sociology, for instance ‘the near to total absence of Africa in the sociological canon’ (Sitas 2014: 460). The global geography of the sociological canon may not only reflect but also result from the colonial histories of Europe. Connell’s work (1997, 2018) has been pivotal in this regard. She argues that sociology in the colonial ‘metropole’ was inherently intertwined with its colonial history. The South has always been – and still is – integrated into global sociology as a provider of raw data, while the North controls the production of knowledge, a dominance evidenced by the hegemony of U.S. and European scientific institutions. Thus, the sociological canon does not just lack postcolonial theorists and theories but is an expression of colonialism.

Four strategies

In response to these critiques, Burawoy (2024) identifies four positions on the future of the sociological canon: restoration, rejection, revolution, and reconstruction. The first position involves largely maintaining the canon in its current state, making minor adjustments, if necessary, but essentially restoring its constructive functions in contemporary sociology, including the discipline’s critical potential. For instance, Burawoy (2024) argues that classical theorists have served as important sources of inspiration for counter-movement thought, as illustrated by Habermas and Polanyi’s critique of the state’s and market’s colonization of civil society (p. 99).

The second strategy, rejection, advocates for discarding the canon entirely, arguing that the concept of a canon is inherently untenable. Any ranking of theories as more exemplary than others is necessarily exclusionary of alternative perspectives. This perspective does not deny the relevance of classical theorists but, in Burawoy’s (2024) words, they are ‘just brought down from their pedestal’ (p. 100). ¹ The idea is that any canonical framework will inevitably perpetuate traditional perspectives, thus preserving the discipline’s contemporary character (Guggenheim and Krause, 2012). O’Toole (2001, quoted in Furseth, 2015) notes the irony of sociology—a discipline that prides itself on being critical and anti-authoritarian—insistently keeps defending its classics and taking on the role of guardian of traditions.

A third strategy aims to revolutionize the canon by maintaining the concept but undertaking a complete ‘makeover’ to demasculinize and decolonize its content. For instance, this could involve establishing a new foundation for sociological thought based on Du Boisian sociology, replacing the traditional ‘founding fathers’ (Itzigsohn and Brown, 2022, quoted in Burawoy, 2024: 100). Burawoy (2021) proposes a fourth strategy: reconstruction, which aims to alter the canonical content without discarding the concept of the canon itself. He contends that every discipline requires a set of shared fundamentals and suggests that sociology should ‘retain our canon but view it not as complete and permanent, but as contested and dynamic’ (Burawoy, 2021: 552). His contribution to this restored canon is the inclusion of Du Bois as a fourth founding figure, alongside Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, and in her 2024 paper on US syllabi Melcher states that Du Bois now ‘has clearly entered the sociological canon, overtaking both Weber and Durkheim’.

Sociology in practice

Arguably, the challenges of the sociological canon are most apparent in educational settings. What role should the classics play in training future sociologists? This question is closely linked to the pedagogy of sociology. The first consideration is whether to pass on the sociological canon to the next generation of practitioners. If deemed relevant, the next question is how the classics should be presented and utilized as learning resources in the classroom. For instance, a restorative approach obviously suggests a different educational philosophy than a rejection of the sociological canon. Furthermore, the role of theory – and the various types of theory – reflects how sociology is envisioned as an academic discipline. Courses labelled as ‘theory’ courses are of particular interest, however, Alexander’s (1987) asserts that any sociological thought is theoretical to some degree.

Burawoy (2013) identifies two primary approaches. The first is the survey approach, which he finds to be dominant across Western higher education institutions. This method aims to provide students with a comprehensive map of the sociological landscape, where the canon often represents the peaks of main interest and serves as reference points for navigation. The alternative is the ethnographic approach, where the lecturer focuses on the dynamics and interplays of theories. Burawoy argues that this approach better invites an in-depth exploration of the main figures of the sociological canon, highlighting their exemplary theoretical crafting and relational structures. The strategy often but does not necessarily involve the classics, as the idea is to focus on the internal logic of theories, their interrelations and the generic aspects of theorizing social phenomena.

Other proposals aim to make sociological theory more accessible to students. Papers on the pedagogy of sociology often describe theory as more complex and harder to grasp for students than other topics. Various pedagogical strategies and tools are suggested to improve teaching (see Estefan and Seim, 2022 paper for an excellent overview). Nonetheless, the assumption that the classics merit attention in sociology classrooms is generally accepted.

More radical critiques suggest revitalizing sociology teaching by re-conceptualizing the roles of instructors and students. Instead of treating students as passive recipients of knowledge, theory teaching should aim to engage students as budding theorists. This may or may not involve canonical theorists. For example, Burawoy (2013) employs specific theorists and theories to explore how positions develop through internal dialogues: Marx and Engels critique Smithian theory, and later neo-Marxist theories and other perspectives further critique and develop original Marxist themes. Burawoy’s students would become experts in labour theory, his chosen case for the theographic approach, but might remain unfamiliar with other themes, topics, and theories. However, they would acquire the ability to theorize.

This approach aligns with Freire’s (1974 [1968]) concept of a ‘pedagogy of emancipation’, where knowledge is not given to students but acquired through practical action. Dewey’s (1997 [1938]) pragmatism and his concept of ‘learning by doing’ emphasize similar ideas. Consequently, the canon cannot be simply transferred to students; it must be discovered and utilized as useful resources for developing theorizing skills, described by Swedberg (2014) as the ‘process through which a theory is produced’ (p. 17).

Overall, the strands of critiques of the sociological canon are interrelated: The canon is criticized for ignoring marginalized perspectives, particularly those of women and voices from the Global South (it is ‘male’ and ‘white’). This renders the canon at the core of a sociology that appears as conservative and traditionalist, lacking the ability to innovate and engage with its practitioners, professors, researchers, and students (it is ‘dead’). This leads to a pedagogy of sociology that fails to engage students, as theory becomes an ‘object to acquire’ rather than a ‘skill to practice’.

Studying sociology through its reading lists

The reading list – the sociological texts chosen by instructors for use in a course – is essential to the very foundation of sociology as a discipline and in the everyday life of its practitioners. It defines the core elements of sociology as a scientific enterprise, encompassing foundational knowledge, dominant perspectives, research designs, theories, methods, and empirical findings. It identifies significant individuals, research groups, schools of thought, and scientific traditions that have produced valuable knowledge documented in books, edited volumes, papers, and other outputs. The reading list reflects those works considered to hold high and lasting qualities and provides a sound basis for sociological knowledge. It also highlights key disagreements and contestations within the field of sociology. Using Bourdieusian terminology, it illustrates the struggles and valuation processes by and of scholars and their intellectual products, thus helping to define sociology as a field of practice. Reading lists can be viewed as the outcomes of these struggles at any given time.

Furthermore, reading lists function as roadmaps for the discipline’s future development. First, they identify the research questions considered relevant and the tools – research designs, theories, and methods – appropriate for addressing them. Second, they train future generations and implicitly socialize them into specific traditions of sociological thought and ways of ‘doing’ sociology.

Reading lists are also practically significant for both professors and students. For university professors, ‘constructing a reading list involves one of the few exercises of power and influence left to teachers. Inscribed in it are our own and the discipline’s history of judgements about who are the important characters and what are the important themes in the storyline of sociology’ (Parker, 1997: 133). To be recognized as a ‘good’ sociologist, a professor may write books and papers that make it onto reading lists. For students, reading lists often constitute the curriculum of a course and, collectively, the study programme that certifies them as proper sociologists. In practice, becoming a sociologist means mastering the content of the ten to fifteen reading lists presented at the required courses at the BA and MA levels.

Consequently, analysing sociology reading lists in many respects amounts to a survey of sociology, providing an excellent prism through which to examine the discipline’s structural properties and cultural characteristics.

‘The reading list project’ and Norwegian sociology

This article draws on the practices of the Norwegian sociological community to discuss the contemporary constitution of sociological theory. Materials from The Reading List Project (2019) offer a unique opportunity to examine which readings sociology professors deem adequate and which texts students study to become sociologists. The project contains a complete register of readings from all sociology courses (N = 120) at the BA and MA levels across Norwegian higher education institutions in 2019. It includes 2623 entries overall, with 1929 unique texts. Except for six courses that did not publicize any readings, or had none, the material provides a full overview of what Norwegian professors find adequate for students to read to become sociologists. The materials are publicly available (Norwegian University of Science Technology (NTNU), 2020). Further details are provided in Rye and Aarskog (2020).

Contemporary Norwegian sociology has unique properties, as do all national sociologies, but serves as an instructive case for studying sociological theory practices across different national contexts. Today, sociology is taught at nine higher education institutions. In 2019, all offered BA programmes and four offered MA programmes. Around 500 BA and 80 MA students graduate annually. BA programmes last 3 years, and MA programmes 2 years, in accordance with the Bologna declaration.

Since its inception, Norwegian sociology has been intertwined with other parts of Western, influenced by both Continental and Anglo-Saxon traditions. The theoretical frameworks and methodological toolboxes are drawn from the same Western intellectual sources. Sociological practices in research and teaching resemble those in other countries. Nevertheless, national traits of theorizing exist, as emphasized by Krause (2016) and Ritzer and Stepnisky (2014). Sociology, like other social sciences, operates within and is influenced by societal contexts. For example, Norwegian/Nordic sociology is characterized by its symbiotic relationship with the state and the Scandinavian welfare state regime (Bjarnason and Sigfusdottir, 2002; Thue, 2005). Nonetheless, Norwegian sociology is defined by its intimate relationship with the larger field of global sociology and has always emphasized successful integration into international sociology. Norwegian sociologists read, write, and publish in English. Professors frequently take sabbaticals and participate in international conferences, workshops, and other academic meetings. Conversely, foreign sociologists visit Norway as scholars.

In conclusion, Norwegian sociology reading lists are in this article taken to represent an illustrative and representative case (Yin, 2009) for studying contemporary Western sociology and the discipline’s orientation towards classical texts.

Analytical strategy

The analysis employs mixed methods, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. The numerical presence of theorists and theories on reading lists indicates their importance. Who and which theories are deemed significant enough to be included in the sociological register? How many female, non-White, or non-Western authors are present? However, categorizing and interpreting the texts is often challenging, as their significance can vary. A short reading on Marx’s alienation might have more impact in a lecture than a full volume on Durkheim. Therefore, both individual texts and entire reading lists require careful qualitative interpretation to understand how the contemporary sociological discipline constructs its notion of ‘important’ knowledge worthy of attention and transmission to future generations.

At a more general level, the interpretative strategy is defined by its abductive character, iteratively using pre-existing knowledge and open-mindedly allowing inputs from the materials to shape the analysis. This approach is informed by the author’s experience with sociology and its reading lists, both as a student and later as a professor and visiting scholar, across various seven different higher education institutions in Norway and the Anglo-Saxon world. These experiences highlight both strong commonalities and local variations, shedding light on potential alternative practices essential for this article’s research questions and analysis. In result, I hope the overall themes, discussions, and main conclusions will be considered robust and trustworthy.

Canonical continuity, theoretical diversity

An initial observation is the notable coherence in the structure and content of readings across the Norwegian BA and MA sociology programmes. The consistency indicates a shared tacit understanding of what constitutes sociology as a scientific discipline, allowing reading lists to be transferable between institutions. Differences appear to arise from individual professors’ preferences rather than systematic variations in programme profiles. All programmes emphasize theory as central and utilize a flexible understanding of the concept, encompassing all types of theories proposed by Merton (1945) and Abend (2008) and covered by Alexander’s (1987) theory-data continuum.

The BA and MA sociology programmes consist of five key components: social science methods, research designs, thematic and theory courses, and, as concluding elements, the writing of BA and MA theses. The BA programmes also include an introductory course to the discipline. It is challenging to sharply demarcate between theory-focused and non-theory-focused courses. BA introductory courses are students’ first encounters with the sociological discipline, serving the dual purpose of introducing key sociological concepts and conceptual schemes while exploring key social phenomena at micro, meso, and macro levels. For instance, two of the most influential introductory textbooks at Norwegian universities (Giddens and Sutton’s, 2021, Sociology, read in full or part in four BA programmes, and Schiefloe’s (2018) Menneske og samfunn, read in full in three BA programmes) are structured to combine presentations of key perspectives, concepts, and themes with sociological analyses of data. In these textbooks, as in their counterparts, key sociological theorists are integrated throughout rather than prominently featured at the front. Their selections largely mirror those presented below. The theorists deemed to have canonical status are given separate presentations, including their biographies and their significance to the development of sociology as a scientific discipline.

At first glance, methods courses might appear to be the least theoretical, as they are skills-oriented, focusing on training students in data collection, analysis, and presentation. However, these courses often address issues inherently related to the philosophy of social sciences (ontology, epistemology) and methodological concerns central to the sociological tradition. The goal of connecting method and theory is also met through readings of substantive papers in methods courses, which illustrate the application of different methods.

Embedding methods teaching within the context of abstract theoretical questions is more common in qualitative methods courses than in quantitative ones. Some ‘qualitative’ reading lists include references to theorists currently part of, or aspiring to be included in, the sociological canon, such as Blumer’s (1969) Symbolic Interaction: Perspectives and Method and Smith’s (2005) Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. [#MA University of Bergen: SOS304 Metode – kvalitative tilnærminger.]

All programmes offer a selection of specialized courses, most often elective, providing students with opportunities to focus on specific sociological sub-fields. These courses may be defined by substantive themes (such as family, health, and welfare), key concepts (such as organizations, work, and migration), or theoretical perspectives (such as cultural sociology, economic sociology, and class sociology). They vary in their theoretical emphasis; some focus on in-depth theoretical literature studies, while others primarily rely on empirical materials. For instance, a course on health, safety, and environment trains students in how to systematically facilitate positive work environments, including several praxis-oriented texts. [#BA University of Stavanger BSS220 Helse-, miljø- og sikkerhetsledelse]. On the other end of the spectrum are MA courses that focus on specific theoretical traditions, such as cultural sociology, and may include complex original texts by Adorno, Giddens, Becker, and other classical sociologists. [#MA University of Oslo: SOS4510 Cultural sociology.] However, and regardless of their thematic focus, all courses include some form of theory, even if not the most canonical versions.

In their BA and MA theses, students are expected to apply and demonstrate the competencies in sociology (knowledge) and sociological analysis (skills) they have acquired during their studies. No specific readings are provided for thesis courses other than literature on ‘how to write’ and texts on generic research skills, such as methods for conducting literature searches. Guidance on specific literatures is provided by supervisors. However, the students’ BA and MA theses are often, though not always, related to courses in research design at both levels. In these courses, the interlinkages between ontology, epistemology, methodology, substantive theory, and methods are discussed through various research designs. The objectives of these courses, as reflected in the readings, are to prepare students for their independent thesis work. This preparation includes the use of research design books as well as reading exemplary and/or illustrative papers that have applied different designs, methodologies, and methods.

The theory courses

The final component of sociology study programmes is the ‘theory’ courses, which reflect Merton’s (1945) first category of sociological theory: ‘general sociological orientations’ (pp. 464–465). All programmes include these mandatory courses. Often, but not always, BA-level theory courses are divided chronologically, first covering ‘classical’ and then ‘modern’ sociological theory. Six textbooks are commonly used to survey the landscape of sociological theory: Andersen and Kaspersen (2020), Appelrouth and Edles (2008), Hughes et al. (2003), Joas and Knöbl (2009), Ritzer and Stepnisky (2014), and Aakvaag (2008). Among these, one explicitly deals only with ‘modern’ theory (Aakvaag 2008) and another solely with ‘classical’ theory (Hughes et al. 2003). These textbooks follow the same structure, providing a survey of the most important theorists and theories.

The reading lists anticipate a progression in students’ mastery of theory. MA courses offer more complex surveys of authors and their texts, assuming some basic knowledge and using them as reference points to identify recent developments in sociological thought. The distinction between BA and MA levels is not always clear-cut. For example, Joas and Knobl’s (2009) book, relatively advanced in its discussions, appears on a second-year BA reading list but is predominantly found at the MA level. In addition, some introductory courses resemble theory courses, based on survey texts and readings on major canonical authors. [#BA University of South and Eastern Norway: SO-FAG1000 Innføring i sosiologi.]

The theory course reading lists are extensive in their coverage of theorists and theories. The pedagogical strategy and intended learning outcomes aim to provide students with knowledge of a wide array of relevant theories in all their expressions. This ‘survey’ perspective seeks to instil a broad understanding of the entire field of available sociological thought, directing students towards those deemed most relevant. As discussed below, the criteria for ‘relevance’ are often implicit and vary across courses, but there seems to be a shared understanding of what constitutes the core of the discipline’s theoretical heritage. This is consistent with sociology’s multi-paradigm character, which often highlights internal contradictions and conflicts between perspectives. The objective of the theory courses is to survey various elements of sociological theory and locate them within the broader theoretical landscape. However, there seems to be little questioning of the existence of such a landscape or its overall composition.

The outline of the sociological canon is present in the readings of all theory courses, even if the selection of theorists and theories varies slightly. To identify the key elements of the Norwegian version of the canon, the list of theorists appearing in the ‘Table of Contents’ of the six survey texts used in theory courses is examined.

In total, 55 sociologists receive special attention in any of these books. Consistent with previous findings, the list confirms a predominantly Western, White, and male composition. Among the 55, there are only five women, three non-Western theorists, and a few Black Western theorists. For the pre-World War II (WWII) era, all texts include major discussions of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. For the post-WWII era, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Habermas receive special mention in all texts. The US/European composition is evenly balanced, though heavily dominated by the French–German axis within Europe.

In-depth readings

The survey approach to sociological theory forms the cornerstone of teaching, represented by the comprehensive textbooks used in all theory courses. This approach is typically supplemented by more in-depth readings of a narrower selection of key theorists. These readings support the survey strategy by identifying the main points of interest – important theorists and theories for navigating the field of sociology. They also highlight those considered significant enough to qualify for inclusion in the canon. However, these readings also aim to complement the survey strategy by fostering more advanced theoretical skills, particularly evident at the MA level where original texts and scholarly critiques are more frequently included.

Systematizing the theory reading lists, we find 33 theorists chosen for such in-depth study. Ten theorists have their full books represented, 13 have journal papers or shorter original works, and 19 have excerpts of their works included.

Expectedly, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber appear across all theory course readings lists. They are presented as founding fathers and lasting cornerstones of the discipline, and they are represented with a variety of readings. The shared volume of their works, excessing by far any other theorists, signals their privileged position in Norwegian sociology. The detailed discussions of their works further convey their continuing importance in the discipline to the students.

Bourdieu is presented in most but not all readings lists but, and does not receive the same qualitative depth of attention. The impression is that he does not hold the same position as Marx, Durkheim and Weber. Other names are apparent on some lists but not others, and as such demonstrating flexibility of criteria for inclusion and the discretionary powers of the professors. For instance, four theory courses reading lists include original readings or in-depth discussions of works by Habermas and Latour, and three lists include works of Foucault, Luhmann, Simmel, or Coleman. The readings differ in their character but generally present the theorist’s perspective and point to strong and weak sides of their works. However, their very appearance on the reading list is symbolically important and suggests their symbolic position. Even students reading the reading lists only (and not the readings) will acquire an understanding of who/what represents symbolic capital in the field of sociology. In any case, these listings are quantitative indicators only, need to be interpreted carefully, and do not give a blueprint for the content of a canon.

Masculine dominance

A more unequivocal impression from the theory reading lists is the masculine dominance, aligning with recent critiques of the sociological canon. Female sociologists account for only five out of the 55 theorists given emphasized attention in the theory courses’ survey textbooks (Gilman, Hochschild, P.H. Collins, Smith, and Butler). Some of these, and a few other female sociologists, are also represented with original readings, either in full or by extracts, in the theory courses (Butler, Hochschild, Fraser, Arendt, and Connolly). Another interesting inclusion Sydie’s (1994) paper on ‘Sex and the Sociological Fathers which problematize the dominance of male writers and their prominence in sociological theory . However, female contributions generally remain peripheral in the readings.

Aarskog’s (2020) quantitative analysis of the full corpus of Norwegian reading lists provides additional nuances. In terms of the authors of all readings, there is a slight male bias, but both genders are reasonably well represented. She finds that 46% of texts have at least one female author, while 69% have at least one male author. Aarskog’s in-depth interviews with female and male sociologists responsible for reading lists concluded that there is no intentional discrimination. However, strong traditions, disciplinary inertia, path dependency, and the symbolic role of theory contribute to a male bias, also reflected in the fact that males often oversee theory courses, including the formulation of reading lists.

However, gender issues are not ignored in the curriculum and reading lists. Some sociology programmes offer gender courses, while others discuss themes that invite gender perspectives, and many courses are clearly inspired by gender theorists and theories. Nevertheless, these courses may also reinforce the marginalization of ‘female sociology’, making it seem optional rather than central to the discipline.

A ‘white’ sociology

Similarly, Norwegian sociology is predominantly ‘white’ and eurocentric in its reading lists. The representation of non-White authors is about equal to that of female sociologists, both among those given emphasized attention in the theory courses’ survey textbooks and in original readings. As with gender, ethnicity is a prevalent topic in many courses, both theoretical and otherwise. Several programmes offer courses on ‘ethnicity’, often combined with themes on migration. These courses provide students with comprehensive discussions on how ethnicity and race are central to contemporary societies, driven by the increased attention to international migration and the challenges of integrating minorities into Norwegian society.

Despite this focus, few courses draw on canonical theorists or propose new ones to be included in the sociological canon. There are exceptions, such as Connell’s (2014) paper ‘Using Southern Theory: Decolonizing Social Thought in Theory, Research, and Application’[BA University of Bergen: SOS103 Samfunnsstrukturer i endring.] and Malešević’s (2004) paper ‘Classical Sociological Theory and Ethnicity’ [#BA University of Oslo: SOS1003S Sosiologiens klassikere og det moderne samfunn.]. The latter course also includes the only inclusion of work by/ on Du Bois, contrasting his recent rise to canonicity in the US (Melcher, 2024).

Courses on ethnicity cover key themes in ethnic and racial studies, as well as critiques of Western sociology’s attitude towards Southern theory. However, these courses primarily focus on ethnicity and race in other countries or among immigrant populations in Norway. Ethnicity remains largely a ‘thematic’ rather than a ‘theoretical’ matter, holding a marginalized position.

Signs of a changing sociological canon

The discipline may need a canon to foster a sense of unity, given its lack of a well-defined focus and its reputation as an ‘umbrella’ science dealing with social theory rather than strictly sociological theory. As such, the insistence on a sociological canon may reflect efforts to preserve what some may argue is an outdated ritualistic community. The Norwegian reading lists illustrate how the sociology community at large appears satisfied with defining the discipline by both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ testaments of the sociological canon (Connell, 2018: 402), while also negotiating its status and evolving its content. There is no overarching, clear-cut strategy at work, and at least three of Burawoy’s (2024) strategies – restoration, reconstruction, and rejection – are evident in the Norwegian context.

The analysis of the Norwegian reading lists clearly documents a significant reliance on the sociological canon, which closely mirrors the Western canon. Core figures like Marx, Durkheim, and Weber remain central, accompanied by other familiar names, and reflect Norwegian sociology’s close ties with international sociology, as evidenced by the use of English-language textbooks. Consequently, sociologists are socialized into the Western tradition, leading to its reproduction due to the inherent inertia within both sociological institutions and the individuals who populate them (Burawoy, 2024: 99). While some restoration efforts can be observed, they are piecemeal and do not challenge the enduring nature of the sociological canon.

However, some more profound attempts at reconstruction are underway. The core classics are supplemented by female theorists (Martineau, Hochschild, Arendt, among others) and non-White theorists (Du Bois, Fanon, and others). This reorientation is less apparent in theory courses than in thematic courses on gender and ethnicity. As these courses generally occupy fewer central positions in the study programmes, their implications for a reconstruction of the canon may be limited. Nonetheless, their inclusion could indicate increasing attention to female and non-White thematic and theorists, which might eventually permeate core courses. Noteworthy, recent developments have emphasized intersectional approaches that combine gendered and racial theories in their critique of traditional sociological thought.

Current signs of rejection of the sociological canon are more evident and come in two different forms. First, a few readings contain an explicit critic of and argues for the rejection of the sociological canon, for instance the above referred Sydie (on gender) and Connolly’s (on colonialism) readings. Yet the position of the canon as a key object of critique, may also work to collaborate their centrality, such as Brox’s (2015) discussion on the classics [#BA NTNU: SOS1001: Samfunnsteori.] Second, a tacit rejection is found in the relative de-centring of the canonical readings. While they still dominate the theory courses, they are also supplemented by non-canonical readings. The balance shifts between reading lists, though canonical texts numerically dominate in all. Furthermore, courses not explicitly labelled as ‘theoretical’ but ‘thematic’ often provide students with alternative perspectives on theory. This is most evident in elective gender and ethnicity courses, some of which completely lack references to the sociological canon. Eventually, the ‘quiet’ replacement of canonical text with other readings may be as important as the explicit critiques. Regardless, the overall impression is of canonical inertia. Numerically, the explicit ‘rejective’ texts count only a few readings on the theory courses. In contrast, none of the Norwegian theory or introduction courses fails to provide lengthy presentations of Marx, Weber and Durkheim, firmly confirming their place on the pedestal (Burawoy, 2024: 110).

The analysis presented in this article relies on the Norwegian case. Its close integration with Western sociology confirms its status as a representative case, with limited academic literature supporting the main impressions. A preliminary examination of curriculums from other key institutions in the Western world suggests similar structures in reading selections. Interestingly, a check on reading lists at some major sociological educational institutions outside the traditional North appear to follow similar trajectories, confirming Connell’s (1997, 2018) argument about the continued Western academic ‘colonization’ of the South. However, there is also some room for manoeuvring for ‘national’ sociologies. There is also some autonomy for individuals, both instructors (as reading lists vary between similar courses at different institutions) and students (in their selection of elective courses). In this regard, the canon appears not only plastic in its ‘production’ but also in its ‘consumption’.

From canonical theory to post-canonical theorizing

Perhaps more challenging for the future of the sociological canon is the shift in teaching emphases towards ‘theorizing’ rather than ‘theory’. Swedberg (2014) argues that the sociological discipline needs to focus more on how theory is constructed in practice, its actual deployment, and the researched Norwegian reading lists indicate some drift towards such a theorizing approach. As discussed above, readings in methods and design courses, which typically count for substantial part of all BA and MA study programmes, are largely void of references to works in the sociological canon. Reading lists of the thematic courses are more theoretical but most have few references to canonical texts. However, the analyses show how the reading lists of ‘introduction’ and ‘theory’ courses still works to reproduce the sociological canon, despite the sporadic inclusion of some critical contributions in some of the readings list. In the article’s final section, I discuss how a stronger emphasis on theorizing may not necessarily displace the sociological canon but instead refigure its position in the discipline.

Most importantly, a lesser reliance on ‘survey’ textbooks and its standard dissemination of the sociological canon may give way for approaches where theories are chosen for their ‘use value’ and potential to engage students in active theorizing. This may include both classical and novel readings, if they are instructive for students’ analyses of contemporary social phenomenon. For Weber, Marx, Durkheim and their counterparts to maintain their positions in the sociological discipline, they must show that they contribute to contemporary theorizing, for instance, by being helpful to articulate a critique of current societies as suggested by Burawoy (2024: 99).

One example of meeting this criterion may be Bourdieu’s social theory, which combines ‘systematic empirical work’ and ‘reflexive theorizing’ in ways making him invaluable for his quality of being ‘enormously good to think with’ (Jenkins, 2002: 11). Bourdieu himself took a similar approach to his inspirational theorists:

I have a very pragmatic relationship with authors. I turn to them as I would to fellows and craft-masters, in the sense those works had in the mediaeval guild – people you can ask to give you a hand in difficult situations. (Bourdieu, 1990: 28)

In line with this approach, Burawoy (2013) heavily relies on the classics in his ethnographic approach to theory teaching, emphasizing that ‘students are not simply observers but participant observers; they learn that they are theorists themselves’ (p. 781).

Thus, following Parker’s (1997) critique, this article does not suggest rejecting or revolutionizing the sociological canon but ‘instead a more promising approach would be to de-compartmentalize the classical and the multicultural, and read works alongside each other, without the hierarchical binary’ (p. 140). This would change the canon from an authoritative source of theory to a source for disciplinary self-reflection. If so, at stake is not the character of a sociological canon, who and what to include, but to shift the focus from ‘theory’ to ‘theorizing’. In Meghji’s (2021) phrase, the discipline might move beyond ‘the point where students [and professors, auth. addition] see it as a moral obligation to read Marx, Weber and Durkheim’ and turn active, critical and competent in their skills as users of sociological theory rather than passive recipients (p. 1).

This would imply that the sociological canon is deprived of its very authoritative canonical quality. Marx, Durkheim and Weber, or any sociologist, would not figure on the reading list because of their position in the discipline’s history but for their possible values for theorizing. Of particular relevance, and in reflection of the critique of the current canon, inclusion of gender and postcolonial theoretical contributions on the reading lists may improve sociological theory’s adequacy for students seeking to understand their contemporary social worlds. Here the assumption of a certain homology between biographies and theories, echoing key tenants of standpoint theory (Harding, 1986; Smith, 2005), is pivotal: White Western men are, necessarily, prone to develop sociological perspectives that, in best of cases, neglect other perspectives of experiences of marginalized individuals and social groups. In the worst cases, they uphold European colonial traditions and contribute to the upkeeping of exploitative and repressive societies. Alongside the confirmation of the canon’s solid presence, both as a source of readings and at times as a key object of objection, the Norwegian reading lists suggest some interest in such post-canonical approaches.

A shift towards a more diverse and non-authoritative, including more alternative voices, may invigorate sociological research and teaching, acknowledging the discipline’s challenges and the need to develop new theoretical and theorizing tools. These strategies would likely result in a less ‘traditionalist’ sociology and enabling better teaching and research, potentially attracting more practitioners and general interest in sociological knowledge. Assumingly, this would also stimulate theory development: better theories in terms of their capacity to address contemporary society. It would be more relevant if open for a larger and more diverse field of theorists.

If so, the sociological canon might be reserved for shorter sections on the ‘history of social thought’, saving time for theory teaching and research to engage with more recent theories, as suggested by Abrutyn (2013). Thus, the sociological canon would become an object of historical study, continuing to form an intellectual community through its ritualistic functions, but also acknowledging and theorizing its shortcomings, for instance its colonial history.

Thus, the key question may not concern the very composition of the canon, nor whether to reconstruct, reject, revise or restore its components, but to relegate readings to resources for the sociological endeavours to understand social phenomena in the contemporary world, characterized by diversity and intersections of gender and ethnicities.

However, the ‘determining canonicity is not simply a matter of persuading others of the merits of particular authors or texts’ but results from ‘historical configurations of social relations’ in which participants have unequal powers and privileges some voices (Bhambra, 2014: 476). Fasenfest (2022) further warns that ‘the canon works to define but also guard the limits of the discipline’ and to chastise ‘theoretical challenges to define doctrine’ (p. 549). A continued critical examination of the content and quality of sociological theory, in both its canonical and other forms, is nonetheless essential for the further development of the discipline. More importantly, however, discussions about the state of sociological theorizing and its adequacy in analysing contemporary societies are crucial.