SOCIOLOGY IS NOT SCIENTOLOGY.

"It’s Time for a Liberty-Loving Sociology," writes Fabio Rojas for the Martin Center, which probably guarantees the poobahs of the American Sociological Association will pay no attention.  That's unfortunate.

Sociology’s criticism of modern society doesn’t limit itself to an anti-market stance. Sociologists are often opposed to many of the institutions that define modern liberal societies. Wendy Leo Moore and Joyce Bell criticized free-speech norms on the ground that they enable racist attacks and a general atmosphere of neoliberalism. And David Hargreaves wrote that modern schools are afflicted with a “cult of individualism” that can be dispelled with sociological analysis.

Thus, one might conclude that sociology is a field of inquiry defined by a commitment to collectivism and a rejection of liberal institutions such as markets, limited government, ethical individualism, and free speech.

I am here to tell you that this is wrong.

It is absolutely true that most sociologists lean to the left, and Marx is more popular than Mises within the discipline. At the same time, there is nothing to prevent scholars from developing a social science that takes liberty seriously.

It is an open secret in higher education that the Sage publications are a rigged glass bead game for the woke, and a more careful perusal of sociology curricula might turn up some respect for inquiry rather than indoctrination.  And yet, deconstructing free speech because it's repressive tolerance is hackneyed, and was when it fled the Weimar Republic. and haven't I been calling attention recently to the deconstruction of norms without regard to what replaces them?

I vent because I can.  Professor Rojas wrote a book, because he's still in the game.  "What would a pro-liberty or pro-market sociology look like? With that task in mind, I produced a book called Sociology and Classical Liberalism in Dialogue: Freedom Is Something We Do Together, co-edited with my friend and colleague Charlotta Stern of Stockholm University and the Ratio Institute."

Good.  Remember this?  "Indeed, when something happens that doesn't align with their priors, perhaps it is time for the presidents, provosts, and assorted deanlets to pipe down, or perhaps to have some of their colleagues in the relevant departments in for a public forum focusing on what they still don't understand."  It seems like only yesterday.

If not a public forum, a book will do.

The book answers the question, “How can sociology and classical liberalism improve each other with an honest dialogue?” Each of the nine chapters addresses a core idea in sociology, such as poverty, racism, and social change, with ideas drawn from classical liberalism, such as free-market economics, viewpoint diversity, limited government, and an appreciation of free speech. The authors of each chapter bring their expertise in their topic to develop an exchange between classical-liberal thinking and academic sociology.

There have to be classically liberal ideas in sociology before Max Weber and the various Weisenheimers unburdened their discipline from what had been philosophy.  Quibbling aside, that sounds precisely like brainstorming approaches to what the scholars still don't understand.  Stir in some of that sifting and winnowing.

Sociology can do its part by studying the social contexts of tolerance and pluralism. For example, it is common for people to be afraid of new technologies and to demand that they be banned or excessively regulated. This is a problem because new technologies and the firms that develop and disseminate them are key factors in economic growth. Sociologists could study the cultural attitudes that encourage people to be more tolerant of market innovations and profit seeking.

I am under no illusion that all sociologists will come to my point of view and endorse the virtues of free markets and limited government. Still, sociology can only benefit by diversifying its intellectual portfolio. Students and professors alike will be enriched by a pluralistic social science, where the critics and defenders of markets and freedoms all have ample voice.

Yes, and it might serve students and faculty of a leftish disposition to have to face real pitchers rather than pretend that batting practice gets them to the playoffs.