A burning question in sociology in recent years, which has unfortunately not been asked much by researchers outside the discipline. The goal here is not to summarize concrete findings (that would require a separate post), but rather to give readers unfamiliar with sociology a better idea of what this discipline offers in very general terms. To start it off, it might be useful to talk a bit about what sociologists even do and what our research looks like.

(Caution: This has become a longer read than intended, but you can of course jump straight to the summary.)

Some Notes on Sociology for the Interdisciplinary Audience

For starters, sociology is a social science.

Social science is the study of human societies and their underlying structures, the way people act and interact as a part of them, the way they change over time. Besides sociology, it includes disciplines such as political science, anthropology, human geography, economics, and psychology (though economists sometimes seem to think of themselves as quasi-natural scientists, while neuropsychologists actually cross into that territory, the boundaries can be blurry).

Generally speaking, sociology is not primarily concerned with the individual and their behavior, in which it differs from psychology, for instance. Instead, we focus on phenomena on a larger scale. That could be an entire nation, but also smaller groups of people, such as organizations or families. At the center of all sociological inquiry is the relationship of the individual and society, agency and structure, free will and circumstance. Sociological theories place varying importance on one or the other in explaining social phenomena, and like all social sciences, the discipline has been shaped by a history of competing schools of thought. In fact, early sociology of the 19th century was a more philosophical endeavor and often dealt with metaphysical and very normative questions of human (co)existence, while the period roughly since World War II has seen a rise in data-driven empirical work, especially with the advent of modern computing.

Modern day sociological research resembles the natural sciences in that it aims to generate generalizable findings. However, such generalizations are difficult to make due to the inherent complexity of human behavior, interactions, and social structures. Thus, the reach of sociological knowledge is quite limited when compared to the natural sciences, and we always operate on the basis of probabilism rather than determinism. That is, we make statements such as “if x happens, then y becomes more likely” instead of “if x happens, y happens”.

This unfortunately means that sociological insights tend to be somewhat inconclusive, which makes them unpracticable for politicians, often leading to them being ignored. But there is another reason for that, too. Since sociology is a science, it does not stop at describing reality, it also strives to explain what is observed. And explaining something is to acknowledge it is not self-evident that things have to be the way they are. As a result, sociology is a critical social science and political by design. It does not take social arrangements for granted and tries to view them from an outside perspective, with as little status-quo bias as possible.

When facing an existential threat such as climate change, this critical stance is invaluable. It allows us not only to ask “How did we get here?” and “How do we get out of this?”, but also to find answers that go deeper than “By emitting greenhouse gases” and “By emitting less”.

Take the Sociology Pill and You Might Begin to See Structures

In order to better understand this unique perspective sociology offers, it is perhaps useful to introduce the term “sociological imagination”. It has been used to describe a certain way of analytic thinking that allows us to see our own personal experiences within the broader context of society.

Sociologist C. W. Mills (1959) understood this imagination as the ability to link what happens in our personal sphere to the overarching “issues” of the social structure we live in; i.e., realizing that buying a new phone every two years is not merely an individual preference but also heavily influenced by a growth-dependent economy, marketing, learned notions of necessity, peer pressure, and short product life-cycles. This ability is thought to be lacking in most people, who rarely question the origins of their everyday practices. Unfortunately, this includes many climate researchers and politicians.

Norgaard (2018) speaks of an “ecological imagination” that enables us to see how we physically impact our planet’s environment. This kind of imagination has so far been dominant in science, politics, and the general public, but it is now hitting a wall. We know what causes climate change, but we can not make sense of why we are seemingly incapable of stopping it, despite all the knowledge climate scientists have accumulated.

In the social sciences, the more influential economic and psychological literature on climate change is characterized by an individualist perspective on climate change and society. Focusing on consumer choices, sometimes accounting for individual-level context factors such as climate change knowledge and attitudes, it mostly fails to apply true sociological imagination to the issue.

From this individualist perspective, economists and psychologists typically employ the concept of behavior; that is, decisions driven by motives, interests, attitudes and so on. By manipulating these drivers, individual behavior could then be steered into a desired direction. This approach, dubbed the “ABC” model by sociologists (attitude, behavior, choice), assumes that pro-environmental decisions of citizens can be achieved through education, awareness campaigns, incentives, etc. An approach that, while providing some important insights, has obviously not been enough, as harmful consumption remains high. At the same time, this way of thinking tends to shift the blame on consumers and relieves governments and corporations of their responsibility (Shove 2010).

From the sociological perspective, what prevents us from achieving a true understanding of the social side of climate change is, in very broad terms, a widespread blindness to how circumstances beyond our control and perception guide our decisions. In other words, it is important to realize that social structure (loosely defined as established, organized patterns of social action, the “framework” of society) shapes individual action. But, also, that repeated and accumulated actions create these structures in the first place, keep them alive, or change them – the duality of structure (Giddens 1979).

Simply put, sociology is more inclined to consider the wider context of individual action. It focuses less on each person’s conscious decisions and more on the work of largely invisible (but very powerful) social forces.

Where is Sociology Still Lacking?

Naturally, sociology does not have all the answers, various weak points exist within the discipline. The most significant ones with regards to climate change are, in my view, the following:

We still do not sufficiently engage with the physical/biological limits of human societies, and what coming close to or exceeding these limits means for societies. Already there are calls to take the more abrupt types of change into account, induced by singular high-impact events or social tipping points. In more drastic terms: Sociology should consider not only gradual change, but also the collapse of societies (Adloff 2022).

This goes hand in hand with a growing need for prediction, which sociologists have long been wary of for various reasons, despite our general aim to generalize findings beyond a specific sample (this deserves a separate post, though). On a practical level, predictions are currently hampered by sociology’s lack of established ways to model complex social systems, especially using simulation. The earth sciences provide us with models that show possible climatic futures. It is up to sociologists to add models of social futures. Spelling out in more concrete terms what changes in the environment might mean for societies would at the very least help us be better prepared for the future, perhaps even accelerate mitigation efforts. While exact forecasts are impossible, these don’t have to be the goal of prediction. First, prediction can spur debates and direct attention to potentially dangerous developments (see Limits to Growth, Meadows et al. 1972). Second, using available data and knowledge of social and environmental systems, it is possible to present uncertain yet plausible paths of social change under a changing climate, which can be refined as more data becomes available and knowledge grows. In fact, some sub-disciplines have already developed expertise in this, such as migration research or population projection. Third, in an analytic sense, prediction can also serve to more rigorously test our theories against real-world data (Verhagen 2022).

All of this requires engaging more with other disciplines. Certain social science disciplines already bridge the theoretical and empirical gap between society and environment, such as human geography or social ecology. Mainstream sociology, however, continues to be at odds with the idea of incorporating environmental changes into our theories and empirical research. On the flip side, this of course also requires the natural sciences to be open to cooperation. Realizing that accumulating truly impressive amounts of knowledge on climate change has not been enough to stop it, is the first step.

In summary…

• Sociology considers the wider context of individual action and its relation to overarching social structures. Other approaches see the individual as the primary object of research and the target of climate policies, failing to appreciate the complexity of society, unfairly shifting responsibility to the people, and hindering true progress in the fight against climate change.
• Sociology is comfortable with the idea that societal arrangements may (have to) change, but politicians often prefer simpler and more practicable answers.
• Sociology is equipped to find out why we are not doing enough, and how we can enable the change that is necessary to mitigate/adapt to climate change.
• Sociology can’t present definitive solutions to the climate crisis or exact forecasts of social change, but can contribute to preparing ourselves for a turbulent future.
• Sociology needs help in linking the social to the natural world.

References

Adloff, F., 2022. Gesellschaftlicher Kollaps und Kollapsologie, in: Ibrahim, Y., Roedder, S. (Eds.), Schluesselwerke Der Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klimaforschung. transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, pp. 339–348.

Giddens, A., 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. Macmillan Press, London.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York.

Mills, C.W., 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, New York.

Norgaard, K.M., 2018. The Sociological Imagination in a Time of Climate Change. Global and Planetary Change 163, 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.018.

Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 42, 1273–1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282.

Verhagen, M.D., 2022. A Pragmatist’s Guide to Using Prediction in the Social Sciences. Socius 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221081702.