I have always had a quiet interest in what was once openly discussed and occasionally commended as ‘muckraking sociology’. This may not surprise those who have read my previous blogs. But I was recently reminded of the existence of a book called ‘Muckraking Sociology: Research as Social Criticism’, edited by Gary Marx and published in America in 1972. I tweeted in search of a copy and was directed by a colleague to eBay, where I purchased one for just over £5. In the introduction Marx offers a very clear definition and exposition of this concept, and this forms the basis of the current blog.
Marx begins by citing from the first issue of transaction in 1963: ‘the social scientist studying contemporary problems and the complex relationships among modern men knows that he can no longer discharge his social responsibilities by retreating from the world until more is known’ (emphasis added). Setting to one side the issue of the sexist language, I am tempted to ask of our present community of sociologists in the UK – which I have often described as ‘tamed’, and now and again even as ‘corraborationist’ – are we in collective retreat? Get the next grant in, get something into a high-impact journal …
Marx refers to muckraking research in the following terms: ‘such research at its best documents conditions that clash with basic values, fixes responsibility for them and is capable of generating moral outrage.’ The term muckraking originates from ‘muckrake’, an instrument used for gathering dung into a heap. In the hands of investigative journalists, muckraking came to be identified with ‘the searching out and exposure of misconduct on the part of prominent individuals and the discovery of scandal and incriminating evidence’. Marx says of his varied collection of pieces in ‘Muckraking Sociology’ that they serve as a vehicle for social criticism and – he adds, ‘hopefully’ – for social change.
He is worth quoting at some length here:
‘such research uses the tools of social science to document unintended (or officially unacknowledged) consequences of social action, inequality, poverty, racism, exploitation, opportunism, neglect, denial of dignity, hypocrisy, inconsistency, manipulation, wasted resources and the displacement of an organisation’s stated goals in favour of self-perpetuation. It may show how, and the extent to which, a dominant or more powerful class, race, group or stratum takes advantage of, misuses, mistreats or ignores a subordinate group, often in the face of an ideology that claims it does exactly the opposite. In pointing out a state of affairs that strikingly clashes with cherished values, muckraking research may have an expose, sacred cow-smashing, anti-establishment, counter-intuitive, even subversive quality, for it grows out of and helps sustain social upheaval and questioning. Although sociology like any other intellectual undertaking always has this potential, it is often not realised.’
Marx turns his attention briefly to the varied roles open to the sociologist, subsequently focusing in on an important but under-acknowledged potential for change that ‘lies in the educative role (sociology) can play in raising public issues’. His references to the writings of Herbert Gains and Howard Becker at this point remind those of us of a certain age that questions like ‘whose side are we on?’ were once commonplace amongst the discipline’s leading protagonists.
Maybe, Marx asks, sociology’s involvement with public issues is cyclical, or at least linked to wider social tendencies. Mannheim for example argued that systematic sociology develops when a nation begins to be unsure of itself. Marx suggests that American sociology in the 1960s (the period he is concerned with, and a product of) was much influenced by the ‘unfortunate involvement in Southeast Asia’. Tom Bottomore wrote of this era in American history: ‘in a society of such wealth and power, capable of doing such immense good or harm to the whole world, the social critic can scarcely fail to acquire a sense of the seriousness and urgency of his task … The actions and responsibilities of a great world power provoke a major undertaking of social criticism.’ Marx notes that in 1960s America there developed a ‘reciprocal relationship’ between critical social science and social movements. He writes:
‘the present-day researcher may feel that his work is worthwhile to the extent that he contributes to existing protest movements and avoids writing only in the abstract. A group making demands may sensitise the sociologist to studying its problems, and his data and theories may offer to further press his claims and mobilise potential members.’
I am reminded of the later studies of Tourraine here.
Marx goes on to make the point that muckraking researchers are often joung, ‘outsiders’ and inclined to activism; age and seniority tend to be associated with comfortable acquiescence. H also identified potential problems in connection with muckraking sociology. First there may be methodological and ethical problems, especially when studying powerful groups (‘the more a group has to hide, the more protective it is likely to be’). This can lead to pressure to ‘compromise’ around data access or anonymity. Second, there can be personal issues: researchers might feel they are profiting from others’ misery for example. Blauner wrote of ‘academic colonialism’ in precisely this connection. The tendency to get funds from the top to study people at the bottom, or outside, creates tension, the more so if the researcher ‘feels vulnerable to charges of perpetuating the status quo by feeding research upward into the hands of the powerful’. A related point often overlooked is that is that the researcher might also offend those studied – the oppressed – by debunking some of their claims. Third, the strain towards objectivity can create an inner conflict in researchers who hold strong value positions. ‘The needs of social science and of opinion mobilisation may conflict.’ Finally, fourth, a researcher is likely often to find that ‘once the world stands naked, its full ugliness exposed’, nothing much changes. What to do then? To enter the realms of policy-making may well be to face charges of utopianism or romanticism.
I have debated a number of these issues in my writings and my blogs. In Habermasian terms, to enter the public sphere and thereby seek effective influence for change is to go from (a) professional-to-public sociology and communicative action, to (b) action sociology and strategic action. Habermas himself has noted the discomfort in doing this (see previous blog). For now, it is sufficient to commend Gary Marx’s promotion of muckraking sociology and to suggest that this strand has become a rarety in the discipline in the UK. Insofar as social order/change is salient, it may well be that the perfect storm of Tory austerity, wealth and income inequality, Brexit, COVID-19 and the forthcoming deep recession will inspire more muckraking sociology. It certainly ought to!