In Search of Conservative Sociology

In a recent article in Times Higher Education, Musa al-Gharbi, a fellow in sociology at Columbia University, notes the dearth of conservative faculty, students and ideas in US universities. Al-Gharbi is linked to the Heterodox Academy group, which claims that the same tendency is also evident in the UK, Canada and Australia. A self-styled ‘progressive’ ideological consensus goes increasingly unchallenged. Dissent from this is sanctioned rather than debated. The consensus distorts education in the social sciences because of its narrow conception of diversity. While this extends to the incorporation of historically underrepresented groups and their viewpoints, it excludes a range of traditional intellectual or ideological positions. Consequently, al-Gharbi argues, conservative interests and politicians see little value in any social science other than economics, which is the least affected by these developments. Since their views are not respected, they have no incentive to sustain the material base of these disciplines.

This is an interesting historical reversal. I first began to study sociology almost 50 years ago. Its development was then conventionally taught as a conservative reaction to the disorder of social and economic change in the 19th century. Our founders focussed on the costs of industrialization and urbanization in Europe and the US. Could these be reversed by re-imagining the institutions of pre-industrial societies? How could harmonious organic communities be restored? Some part of this was a reaction to the rise of socialist political thought. However, sociology was in some sense the antithesis of socialism. They might have an elective affinity in their focus on social systems and social movements, rather than on individuals but their programmes were fundamentally opposed. Sociologists asked how order could be re-established without explicit coercion: socialists sought to replace that order completely.

Over the last half century that tension has virtually disappeared. In some respects, this represents the political failure of the socialist project after the events of 1968. Sociology, has, in many places, been reshaped as a base for political programmes that have lost their purchase elsewhere in society. It is a substitute for a genuine mass party of the left. The discipline has become an echo chamber, most notably in some of the posturing around public sociology or sociological activism. In the process, it has become less and less able to understand the society that provides its subsistence.

Sociology has, for example, become insensitive to the nuances of conservatism and its differences from neo-liberalism. Hayek, for example, memorably declared that he was not a conservative. A neo-liberal sociology is hard to imagine because of its emphasis on individual levels of explanation. However, we should remember that scholars like Hayek and Von Mises came out of the same circles as canonical figures like Schutz or Mannheim and were part of the same debates with the shade of Max Weber.

A conservative sociology, however, would be more concerned with a set of issues on which the discipline is currently silent. We have a sociology that is full of prescriptions about human rights, entitlements and the satisfaction of needs. Conservatives would point out that rights claims imply duties on some other individual or group to satisfy them. They would observe that ideas about entitlement or need are usually statements that resources should be compulsorily redistributed from some social groups to others. They would question the idea that those transfers do not have to be merited or earned and that the recipients are in no way to be held accountable for what they do with the assigned resources. Conservatives would be interested in understanding the boundaries of a moral community. Where do mutual aid and mutual obligation begin and end?

One example from the UK which is a particularly powerful source of working-class grievance might be the allocation of social housing. Access originally depended very much on membership of a community. It was acquired primarily through a combination of kinship, prior residence and queuing. Since the 1960s, this has switched to allocation on the basis of need, taking more account of family size, current housing conditions and lack of income. Working-class families saw their members displaced from ‘their’ localities by incomers, often immigrants from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Many sociologists hailed this as a progressive development, but failed to acknowledge the resentment that it created.

In the US, one might make similar comments on the ‘free college’ movement. How far should students expect other social groups to support their studies through taxation? The students expect to derive some personal benefit from their college experience: any benefit to the taxpayers is indirect and uncertain. Is it not fairer to think of some sharing of costs to reflect the ultimate distribution of benefits?

Questions have been raised by European scholars about the treatment of homeless people. As the UK government once asked: ‘can rough sleeping be considered a lifestyle choice?’  Is it wrong to impose conditionality on any support offered by society at large to those living on the streets, or any other comparable group? Should street begging and soup runs be tolerated when shelters and rehabilitation services are available?

A conservative sociology would not necessarily provide wholly satisfactory answers to any of these questions. It would, though, think that they were worth taking seriously. The resulting debate might well result in more imaginative and innovative outcomes than the current recycling of Utopian demands with no conceivable political traction.

5 5 votes
Article Rating

Robert Dingwall

Robert Dingwall is an emeritus professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University. He also serves as a consulting sociologist, providing research and advisory services particularly in relation to organizational strategy, public engagement and knowledge transfer. He is co-editor of the SAGE Handbook of Research Management.

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Sobocinski

Although I believe that all ideas deserve consideration based upon their merits, I haven’t found it particularly helpful to apply a binary left/right lens to sociological issues. Weber’s ideal of “value-free” research to try to achieve insights holds far more appeal to me than bringing partisan lenses into things. There must be a willingness to follow the evidence, regardless of what political implications are supported. There is also of course the fact that lots of research is motivated by the personal interests and group affiliations of researchers, which can indeed result in politicized research. But the solution is surely not… Read more »


There are practically none of us and that is a detriment to western society more than it realizes. It is the job of the social sciences to make sense of the world around us. Given the rise in hate-crime it is the purview of this discipline to be at the forefront to determine how such depraved individuals foment their values. I feel this authority has failed society due to its drastically one-sided acceptable cannon and failure to recognize a monumental shift in [collective] moral practices. When removing the individual from the equation and adjusting towards Post-Modernist Group Identitarianism – certain… Read more »

Stephen Quilley

Robert, as a sociologist of 30 years (in the Eliasian mostly) I couldn’t agree more with this assessment. Sadly it is not going to happen. And actually the more that advocacy sociology embraces identity politics and engages without restraint or reflection in the culture war, the more I find myself alienated from my own discipline (even though I grew up on the Green/Left and consider this my natural home). I just read tweets from a sociology professor at CUNY (Jessie Daniels) proclaiming that any white families perpetuate white supremacy and racism; and that whites should disinherit their kids to prove… Read more »

John Shelton Rankin

Sociology’s early focus on ” disorder of social and economic change in the 19th century.”, is demonstrated in Durkheim’s work on Suicide; especially his emphasis on inseparable “social types” of societal integration and corresponding types of suicide. Unlike much leftist propositions, Durkheim’s implicit prediction that rising violence results from anomic-anomie dis-integration, can be tested. Conversely, consider the rise in violent crime after the radical movement(s) of the 1960s.

steve wilderson

Robert, I just had a conversation with Rush Limbaugh on his radio show Oct 11. I made the statement that I thought he was one of the greatest Sociologist of the century, He said he had never considered the idea but was intrigued. What are your thoughts

Bob Konrad

If there is an emerging conservative sociology in the US, it might be perhaps represented in a book of readings: Zake, Ieva, and Michael DeCesare, eds. New Directions in Sociology: Essays on Theory and Methodology in the 21st Century. McFarland, 2011. These authors give a new profile to the Austrian School (Hayek) and Karl Popper, by resurrecting their core motivation for theorizing as a reaction to “totalitarianism” in favor of an “open society” rather than emphasizing the methodological contributions, as do most reviews of theory. They critique sociological theory of the late 20th century as leaving out or minimizing agency… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x