Jonathan Turner is the new co-editor of Theory and Society and his latest diatribe won’t surprise you at all

Submissions are open at Theory & Society (DALL-E illustration)

On the Scatterplot sociology blog there are two posts describing the situation at the Springer journal Theory & Society, one by Dan Hirschman and one by Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra, both of which I recommend. The gist of it is the executives at Springer chose new chief editors for the journal without consulting the editorial board or other editors, so they all quit, and now there are new editors with a very different mission for the journal. Specifically, they want to upend the “monoculture of critical approaches” that “utterly dominate” the discipline, “undermining sociology’s professional legitimacy.”

The two new editors are Kevin McCaffree and Jonathan Turner. The latter of these is a famous “greatest generation” (in his words) sociologist. Probably not coincidentally, Turner has just written a ridiculous get-off-my-lawn screed about the state of the discipline, which he sees as being overrun with women, nonbinary people, and racial/ethnic minorities doing social justice warrior mesearch, and generally wrecking the place (“What drove the change away from science,” Turner writes, “were changes in the demography of sociology.”) It’s basically a recapitulation of Christian Smith’s Sacred Project of American Sociology, which Turner loves (practically the only thing he cites) and which I reviewed here.

I read Turner’s paper and made some notes on the PDF, and I share that version here. Here’s a flavor of his prose:

Once a professional organization dedicated to the study of all dimensions of the social universe begins to mix highly moralized ideologies with the study of inequality, the possibilities of value-neutral science decline and are replaced by ideological advocacy and political calls to redress the problem on injustice. And once injustice, which is just one aspect of human social organization is over-taught in academic departments—from English through ethnic, gender, sexuality programs to sociology departmental curricula—the curricula all over campuses and the programs at most sociological meetings operate merely to magnify ideological hype at the expense of pushing science and value-neutral research. Indeed, value-neutral research and science are often seen by the new activists as “part of the problem” in overcoming injustices. Thus, sociology has mobilized those who have committed to giving up their professionalism, thereby demonizing those who have created the large knowledge base that now exists in sociology.

The problem with sociology, in his view, is people obsessed with injustice, who have given up their professionalism, steamrolling over value-neutral research and failing to show appropriate deference to those who came before them, who bequeathed us their knowledge base.

For those grad students considering submitting to this journal, you might want to make sure you don’t fall into this category before you click send: “For those who do not preach ideology and who want to do research in the full range of topic in sociology, not just a limited slice of what justice warriors study, there is little peace from colleagues and, even worse, the graduate students of these crusading colleagues. And this has become the problem.”

Turner is sure all this is why ASA’s numbers are declining: “The only conceivable reason that so many sociologists have left ASA is that they find the shift in focus from science to activism leaves very little reason to belong to ASA.” The association’s membership is down by a third since 2007, but I’m struggling to see how an activist orientation (which the members keep voting for) is the only conceivable reason. That’s not why I left.

As it happens, there are some sciency things I think sociology really needs to do, including updating its transparency and reproducibility practices. I like the social science model of sociology. And I think there is a lot to dig into — and argue about — regarding activism and scholarship, “public sociology,” and “engagement” — all of which I explore in depth in my forthcoming book, Citizen Scholar. And yet Turner’s paper is simply awful — a White-male-grievance monument to laziness and entitlement. For god’s sake, conservative critics of academia, read a goddamn book — a book you don’t like! I do it all the time. It’s informative and it makes you look like less of an asshole.

For both the way Springer handled it, and because of Turner’s attitude and the journal’s stated mission, I won’t be submitting to or reviewing for the journal (which, granted, I have yet to ever do, anyway), and suggest others follow suit. If anyone wants to start a new journal (or publishing collective of some other kind), SocArXiv is here to help.