Nuance is not a virtue of good sociological theory. Although often demanded and superficially attractive, nuance inhibits the abstraction on which good theory depends. I describe three “nuance traps” common in sociology and show why they should be avoided on grounds of principle, aesthetics, and strategy. The argument is made without prejudice to the substantive heterogeneity of the discipline.
BeckerGary. 1978. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
DavisMurray S.1971. “That’s Interesting: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences1(2):309–44.
3.
FoucaultMichel. 2010. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
FrankfurtHarry G.1988. “On Bullshit.” Pp. 117–32 in The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays, by FrankfurtHarry G.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Godfrey-SmithPeter. 2009. “Models and Fictions in Science.” Philosophical Studies143(1):101–16.
6.
GoodmanNelson. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
7.
HempelCarlOppenheimPaul. 1948. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science15(2):135–75.
8.
HesseMary. 1966. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
9.
LewisDavid. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
LukesSteven. 1992. Émile Durkheim: His Life and Work. London: Penguin.
11.
ParsonsTalcott. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw Hill.
12.
ParsonsTalcott. 1952. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
13.
PaulL.A. 2012. “Metaphysics as Modeling: The Handmaiden’s Tale.” Philosophical Studies160(1):1–29.
