How to Change the World: The Three Essential Ingredients of Criticality
Karl Marx, in one of the most famous social statements ever made, wrote,
“Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.”
More specifically, the point is not merely to change the world, but to change it for the
better. Sociologists who struggle to achieve positive social change march under the
banner of social justice, and critical social research is their weapon of influence.
Critical social research is vital to any movement of social justice. To overcome an
obstacle, the obstacle must first be understood. For example, if physicists had not come to
understand gravity, humanity could never have learned to fly. In a similar way,
sociologists use critical research to reveal and unmask the social mechanisms that give
rise to inequality and injustice in the modern world. Critical social research creates
knowledge, and with that knowledge comes the power first to resist inequality, and then
to overcome it.
Changing the social world is an intimidating task that cannot be accomplished
through research alone. Abigail Fuller writes, “No research ever changes society in and
of itself: it does so only through its effects on the actions of people” (91). Swift et al.
similarly state, “Social analysis leads to action on behalf of justice” (118). Three
important concepts underlie these two statements; these three concepts are the core of
critical social research’s contribution to a sociology of change: critical social researchers
must find ways not merely to explain the social world, but to (a) formulate findings that
2
are relevant to the oppressed; (b) put that information in the hands of people who are
likely to use it to take action and influence change; and (c) actively participate in creating
and working toward change in society.
Unfortunately, research is often a tool of domination (Kirby and McKenna: 68).
Positivist social research tends to create knowledge that is relevant to dominant groups
rather than to the oppressed, and due to the nature of inequality, those with the most
power for social change (dominant groups) are often the least motivated to pursue it
(Galtung: 98). Members of dominant groups within society often see the social world as
relatively static or objective. Georg Lukács refers to this view as reification (164). Within
a reified worldview, dominant groups are likely to see social research as a way to
maintain the current system or reinforce the status quo. In fact, dominant groups are
unlikely to see that a need for change exists in the first place.
Instead, it is the marginalized members of society who are most motivated to
work for change. However, subordinated groups are not usually equipped with the tools
they need to turn their motivation into a reality of change. Sandra Kirby and Kate
McKenna have constructed a strategy that seeks to remedy this. In an essay titled
“Methods from the Margins”, they call for critical social research that is not merely about
marginalized or oppressed people, nor even for the marginalized. Instead, they argue that
researchers must place themselves “on the very margins of the production of knowledge”
(68), and conduct their research both from the margins, and with the marginalized. Kirby
and McKenna’s goals are to see the world through the eyes of the dominated; to present
their findings as useful knowledge for subordinated groups; and to equip the oppressed
3
with the tools they need to conduct their own research and understand their own
experiences.
Standpoint theory one-ups the idea of methods from the margins by claiming that
studying the social world from the perspective of subordinate groups is actually
“epistemologically advantageous” (94), or, in simpler terms, more scientifically accurate
or valid (97). Subordinate groups, Fuller explains, “are more likely…to see through the
illusions of the dominant ideology” (95), because they do not benefit from the current
structure of society the same way dominant groups do. As an a priori theory of
knowledge, standpoint theory justifies and reinforces Kirby and McKenna’s strategy of
methods from the margins.
Epistemology, however, is not enough. In order for critical social research to have
an impact on social justice, it must be put into practice. One strategy of inquiry that
embodies the idea of methods from the margins very effectively is Institutional
Ethnography, a methodology developed by Dorothy Smith. The goal of Institutional
Ethnography is to map out ruling relations and the textual mediators that enforce them.
Ruling relations are predetermined frameworks of interaction that both coordinate and
control the social world. Textual mediators, such as schedules or policy documents, are
documents or symbols that are created externally to the lived experiences of everyday life
and serve to legitimize and enable ruling relations. Ruling relations can be beneficial,
when they serve the function of a Hobbesian social contract, but in many situations ruling
relations can prevent individuals from exerting reflexive control over their lived
experiences.
4
Institutional Ethnography works from “a standpoint in the everyday world”
(Campbell and Gregor: 178). Marie Campbell writes, “The [Institutional Ethnographic]
analysis begins in experience and returns to it, having explicated how the experience
came to happen as it did” (206). Because of its roots in lived experience as the primary
source of data, Institutional Ethnography is an innately critical method of social inquiry.
By locating and explicating ruling relations, Institutional Ethnography seeks to
understand and remedy the lack of reflexive control people have over their everyday
lives.
Though Institutional Ethnography’s explication of ruling relations is an admirable
contribution to critical social research, it still only meets the first two goals of social
criticality. Institutional Ethnography generates knowledge that is relevant to the
marginalized, and since it is conducted from and with subordinate positions in society it is
well-situated to inform and equip the individuals who are most motivated to work for
change. But despite Institutional Ethnography’s commendable fulfillment of these two
goals, through the strategy of methods from the margins, there is nothing inherent in the
methodology that meets the crucial third goal of active participation. It is within
dialectics that social research finds this essential third ingredient for criticality.
Originally conceived by Karl Marx, and clarified by Bertell Ollman, dialectics is
both an ontological framework for looking at the social world and a practical strategy of
social analysis. Ontologically, dialectical social analysis sees the social world as “a
construction site for various possible futures” (Carroll: 110). Every part of the social
world is interconnected; there is no object or phenomena that exists independently of its
social context. Social interconnectedness is not a unique postulation; it is, in fact, one of
5
the fundamental principles of sociology, and exists in some shape or form in most
sociological perspectives of the world. Dialectics gains its uniqueness as a strategic set of
analytical questions that reveal and unmask how an object or phenomenon is related to
the social world.
Dialectics prescribes a set of four basic questions (Ollman: 137). These questions
are a strategy rather than a methodology; they are not meant to prescribe a step-by-step
process of how to do social research, but instead to allow for further depth and insight
within whatever methodology a researcher may use. The first three questions stem from
dialectical analysis’s ontology. They are (1) “What is?” (2) “Why is it so?” and (3) “What
may come to be?” The first question of dialectics involves an exploration of the
interconnectedness between an object or phenomenon and its current social context.
Question two delves into the history of the object or phenomenon to uncover the
preconditions and processes that led to its current state of being. Third, dialectics
attempts to make predictions about the future, based on the insights gained through the
first two questions.
The dialectical fourth question is what unleashes its criticality. After asking
“What is? Why is it so? What may come to be?” dialectics invites the researcher to ask,
“What now?” Now that the social world has been explored and explicated, what plan of
action should be taken to address the issues that have been uncovered? Dialectics
recognizes that critical social research cannot be satisfied with diagnosing social ills;
criticality demands action. Without active participation in the processes of change, social
analysis will only strengthen the status quo.
6
A sociologist who does not ask the dialectical fourth question is like a man in an
ivory tower who finds the cure for cancer, chuckles at his own cleverness, and forgets
about it in the morning. There is no purpose in conducting social research if the
understanding gained by it is not used to actively work towards change. Sociologists must
be more than advocates for change: they must be participants. They must be more than
ivory tower manufacturers of knowledge who reinforce reification through false,
nonreflexive objectivity. For critical social research to truly change the world it must be
marginal, so that it is relevant to the lived experiences of subordinate groups; it must be
accessible, so that those who are motivated can be equipped with the tools they need to
create change; and it must be participatory. Only if these three conditions are met will
sociology contribute to Marx’s call for positive social change.