Conclusion

Author:
Restricted access
Rights and permissions Cite this chapter

This collection makes an argument for understanding public sociology more dialectically. The focus of our practice is on dialogue, and the dynamics of knowledge production involves dialectical relations: between teachers and students; researchers and publics; practice and theory; between different practices of sociology reflected in Burawoy’s ‘quadrants’; between the parochial and the universal; the local and global; and between the neoliberal university and the spaces that public sociologists find to engage in dialogue with subaltern counterpublics.

Through a process resonant with Burawoy’s extended case method aiming to stimulate a dialectical process through provocation, case studies and dialogue, this book has foregrounded questions about the publics with which public sociologists engage. Nancy Fraser’s concept of the subaltern counterpublic is used as a heuristic device for understanding the counterpublic spheres that public sociology as educational practice helps to create. It has also encouraged interrogation of the subalternity of the publics with which we engage. Through a series of dialogues, it has attempted to explore the extent to which public sociology as educational practice contributes to social processes in which mechanisms of exploitation and oppression can be challenged. This has helped to clarify that the ‘subaltern counterpublic’ device has heuristic, rather than definitional value for the practice of public sociology. It has helped to shape how we interpret the tasks of public sociologists as well as how publics interact with the social world and its negotiations over power, meaning and practices. This is a dynamic process. The subaltern counterpublic is not a fixed category of the social world, but rather always contingent, relational and subject to realignment.

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 268 201 8
Full Text Views 4 0 0
PDF Downloads 1 0 0

Altmetrics