Sociology today, according to Neil Smelser
Complexity grows, the value-system lasts
Interview by Enzo Rutigliano to Neil Smelser

Our readers might remember that in the past issue of UNITN we asked the same questions to Raymond Boudon, another most famous sociologist with a very different inclination. To the same questions, we received very different answers, different evaluations of the state of the art of sociology, of values etc… Richness of sociology?

What is the relationship between the fall of the ideologies and the fall of the values? Is there a relationship of cause and effect between the two events?
I find it difficult to answer this question, because I do not accept its premise that there has been a fall of ideology and a fall of values in contemporary society. I am of the opinion that the value-systems of contemporary societies are fundamentally intact, though they are being challenged from a greater variety of sources than before - social movements, culturally diverse groups, youth, etc. However, the criticism of contemporary governments and societies often adds up to the criticism that they are not living up to their traditional values--which implies an acceptance of those values along with a disenchantment with the ways in which human institutional arrangements are implementing them or living up to them. As for ideologies, I also see not a "fall" but rather a multiplication of these as the social-structural, group, and cultural life of societies. The main thread in contemporary life is increasing complexity, not the "fall" of either values or ideologies.

Is the crisis of sociology – considered as reading and organization of society (Orientierungslehre) – as it was at its origins – a crisis of orientation (Orientierungskrise)? Has the dissemination of the sociological paradigms, alternative one to the other, and the statement of micro-sociologies in stead of the big theories which deal with the social changes, the social stratification, the big action theories, etc. contributed to the current crisis of sociology as unable to give an explanation of the running of society?
I am also not certain that sociology is "in crisis". It is better established in universities and other places than ever before; there is no decline in numbers of sociologists; and the professional associations that represent sociology are as vital as they ever have been. It is true that in its history the field has continuously developed many more approaches over time, both micro and macro, without discarding older ones very often. This may seem like disorganization, but I regard it as increasing richness of the field. The "crisis" is generated by a minority of scholars in the field who believe that the field does not have the political significance it should have (in their minds) or those scholars who still maintain that sociology should be an over-arching, unified science.

Has the proliferation of specialistic sociologies (sociology of the family, of gender, economic, political, of the environment etc.) contributed to the emptying of sociology as such, that is to say a sociology which could give a unitary explanation of the social phenomena? Have the specialistic sociologies dissolved instead of expand the influence of the sociological point of view, contributing to the crisis of the discipline?
My answer is similar to the last. The increasing specializations in sociology make it more difficult for sociologists to communicate with one another, and this also contributes to the ability of sociology to generate larger explanations for large phenomena. If there is a "crisis"--which I am not able to accept--then it is a crisis of theory, a reluctance of sociologists to take on the great integrative thinking that will bring continuity and order to the great increase in specialized knowledge. That is the great need for the field--theoretical, integrated thinking--but as I say, this is a need, not a crisis.