Kimberley A. Reyes, PhD Candidate
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
University of Michigan
A few months
ago, my Facebook newsfeed was full of references to a special section of the
May issue of Social Problems entitled,
“Essays on Voices from the Margins: Inequalities in the Sociological House.”
I’m not a regular reader of this journal, but as someone who studies contention
within academic disciplines, I was intrigued by all of the buzz. This special
section is a collection of essays from six noted sociologists of color—Eduardo Bonilla-Silva,
David Embrick, Julian Go, Mignon Moore, Aldon Morris, and Mary Romero—each of
whom offered candid reflections on the current state of sociology as it relates
to racial inequality and the issues faced by scholars of color in the
discipline. Their reflections were generated by a town hall discussion at the
2016 meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA), during which frank
conversations were had about the ways in which social inequalities are
reproduced within a discipline that claims social inequality as its core
concern. Taken together, the essays issue a forceful call “to build a better
sociology” (Morris, 2017, p. 210)—one that that supports diversity and
inclusion in practice as much as in rhetoric.
I offer three
key themes from across the essays that I believe are broadly relevant to and
instructive for our own field of higher education:
1) Confronting a historical foundation of
racism
First, these
scholars insist that the discipline must admit to itself that sociological
knowledge is deeply intertwined with racism and colonialism. The
"historical heroes" (Bonilla-Silva, 2017, p.181) credited with
founding sociology were not only overwhelmingly white and male, but they often
rationalized racial prejudice as a biological and innate tendency. Early elite
sociologists’ beliefs in white superiority silenced and suppressed the minority
of sociologists of color who dared to think differently—ousting brilliant
thinkers such as W E. B. Du Bois and Oliver Cromwell Cox from the sociological
canon. Accordingly, these historical ties to a white western point of view must
be understood as sociology’s greatest intellectual constraint (Morris, 2017).
Confronting that constraint requires an epistemic insurgency—a fight to include
worldviews that expand sociological knowledge beyond the “imperial standpoint”
(Go, 2017). Higher education researchers must critically examine the origins of
our own foundational concepts (some of which are based on sociological
frameworks), much in the way that student persistence theory has been critiqued
for its assimilationist bias (Guiffrida, 2006).
2) Rejecting adherence to
objectivity/value neutrality
Second, these
scholars maintain that the discipline’s adherence to objectivity and value
neutrality greatly hinder its potential for societal transformation
(Bonilla-Silva, 2017; Embrick, 2017, Morris, 2017). Bonilla-Silva (2017) and
Embrick (2017) argue that when white sociologists “made a pact with the devil
of objectivity” in the 1920s, they created a sociology that is more concerned
with gathering data than changing lives for the better (Bonilla-Silva, 2017, p.
183). The expectation that the scientific must be kept separate from the
political is an enduring hallmark of white sociology, leaving many contemporary
sociologists in a state of paralysis when it comes to doing work that is
intentionally geared towards social change (Embrick, 2017, p. 190).
Constructing a public sociology that is grounded in human emancipation is
possible, but the discipline will need to replace the myth of value neutrality
with the belief that activism and scientific work can and must go together
(Morris, 2017). In the field of higher education, cultural norms of objectivity
and neutrality may explain why, for example, race-related studies published in
our top journals commonly avoid critical discussions of racism (Harper, 2012).
3) Having the courage to look within
Lastly, these
scholars turn the sociological gaze inward by describing the inequalities that
are reproduced across multiple levels of the discipline—in scholarly/professional
organizations, in departments and programs, and in universities (Embrick,
2017). Bonilla-Silva (2017) argues that relentless racial microaggressions and
the other every day ways in which sociologists of color are made to feel
marginal are central mechanisms of organizational whiteness in the discipline.
Moore (2017) contends that both race and gender dynamics create an environment
where women of color must constantly justify their existence within the
discipline. Reflecting on what has changed since her well-known study of
graduate students in sociology from two decades ago, Romero (2017) laments that
the representation of graduate students and faculty of color remains abysmally
low, and that mainstream sociology refuses to include important sociologists of
color in its theories, methods, and curricula. Although the discipline is
dedicated to studying inequality “out there” in society, it must address the
persistent structural hostility to diversity within. Higher education scholars,
then, must collectively reflect on everyday practices within our own
profession. Do we put too much emphasis on institutional affiliation at our
scholarly meetings? Do we place departmental diversity work primarily onto the
shoulders of our students and faculty of color? Do we privilege certain
epistemologies in our higher education degree programs?
The parallels
between sociology and the field of higher education are clear. Scholars in our own field are committed to
addressing social inequality, but the field itself is based on similar
historical legacies of exclusion, myths of value neutrality, and continues to
lack compositional diversity across faculty and graduate students. Many of us
in higher education consider ourselves scholar-activists. Part of this role
involves examining and challenging the biases embedded in our own dominant
knowledge paradigms. We cannot effectively address social inequality across
higher education until we have come to terms with how inequality is reproduced
within our own field.
References
Bonilla-Silva,
E. (2017). What we were, what we are, and what we should be: The racial problem of American sociology. Social
Problems, 64(2), 179-187.
Embrick, D. G.
(2017). Discontents within the discipline: Sociological hypnagogia, negligence, and denial. Social Problems, 64(2),
188-193.
Go, J. (2017).
Decolonizing sociology: Epistemic inequality and sociological thought. Social Problems, 64(2), 194-199.
Guiffrida, D. A.
(2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto's theory. The Review of
Higher Education, 29(4),
451-472.
Harper, S. R.
(2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review
of Higher Education, 36(1), 9-29.
Moore, M. R.
(2017). Women of color in the academy: Navigating multiple intersections and multiple hierarchies. Social
Problems, 64(2), 200-205.
Morris, A. D.
(2017). The state of sociology: The case for systemic change. Social
Problems, 64(2), 206-211.
Romero, M.
(2017). Reflections on “The department is very male, very white, very old, and
very conservative”: The functioning of
the hidden curriculum in graduate sociology departments.
Social Problems, 64(2), 212-218.
