Download Dominika Partyga

Dominika Partyga
SOC 185 Public Sociology, Live! – Final Paper: Course Evaluation
This course was designed to explore the meaning of public sociology in different parts of the
world. We did this by engaging with a different sociologist each week, by first reading their work and
then entering into a conversation with them over skype. The course was designed to be available to
anyone with access to the internet, in particular 6 groups situated in different places on the globe
(Johannesburg, Sao Paulo, Barcelona, Oslo, Tehran, Kyiv). They posted summaries of their discussions
with the idea of engendering further global discussion. How would you assess the success of the
different elements of this project, how would you suggest it might be improved?
Introduction
As an exchange student, I was asking myself in the first week whether all sociology courses at UC
Berkeley resemble ‘Public Sociology, Live!’ with its interactive framework, underlying passion and
diversity of themes. It soon turned out that the course has been unique in bridging between the
world of academia and real life, bringing into focus variety of questions about nature of knowledge
and truth, boundaries between science and action and most importantly – in familiarizing students
with ‘faces’ behind sociological research. Rather than fulfilling the traditional role of a passive
audience, we have been actively participating in relating the accounts of sociological passion to the
framework of public sociology, with the ultimate vision of stimulating global dialogue.
Considering the complex and experimental form of the course, my evaluation focuses on two
aspects which I find most constitutive for its success. Firstly, I assess its traditional dimension,
reflecting on the content of the course at Berkeley in relation to the effectiveness of the student
learning process. This lays grounds for evaluating its global ambitions. Thus secondly, I assess the
extent towards which the course has facilitated trans-national participation and created a vibrant
network, exemplifying a project of public sociology in its form. While both parts arise from a positive
assessment of the two respective goals, they include suggestions for improvement oriented towards
a deeper, more reciprocal global dialogue.
The success of the course cannot be wholly conveyed without introducing a personal
perspective: after all, the projects we learned about arise from moral commitments and reveal
important ‘lessons’ for us, sociology students. Therefore, I finish by exploring the influence of the
course on my relation to the field, considering the ways in which the realm of public sociology
absorbs, transforms and inspires – as seen from the perspective of a ‘globetrotter’.
The Learning Experience at Berkeley
While the idea of immersing into the worlds of various sociologists every week seemed to me
at first quite ambitious, in not overwhelming, it turned out to be one of the fundamental advantages
of the course. Getting to know different ‘faces’ of public sociology – from its methodological
1
Dominika Partyga
SOC 185 Public Sociology, Live! – Final Paper: Course Evaluation
framework (critical communicative methodology) to its policy orientation (work of Sari Hanafi), it was
impossible to be indifferent or bored. The fast pace of the course allowed us to discover the diversity
of forms public sociology can take and variety of fields in which it can be applied: from organization
theory to history of social movements.
This is not to say that our engagement with sociologists was chaotic or ‘in a vacuum’ – quite
on the opposite, questions and comments on the side of Professor Burawoy and Laleh Behbehanian
stimulated us to explore links between the works from different fields and relate each project of
public sociology to the famous 2X2 table. In this way, we found various similarities that revealed
contextual meanings of public sociology. For instance, Nandini Sundar’s engagement with the
Chhattisgarh community and Rodriguez-Garavito’s exploration of ‘social minefields’ exemplified the
role of public sociology in assuming the standpoint of civil society in face of violence perpetuated
both by the state and market forces. Drawing parallels between their works, we learned that public
sociology can make a difference in such context insofar as it resorts to variety of solutions: from
institution-building to legal advocacy. Similarly, we became aware of more theoretical links: Laleh’s
approach of ‘mapping out’ Sari Hanafi’s account of distribution of power in refugee camp related to
Castell’s theory of network society with its horizontal dissemination of power.
Such moments of ‘correspondence’ were the key to gaining new insights as the parallels can
naturally move beyond the work of ‘our’ public sociologists, sensitizing us to the fundamental
questions: those of power relations, boundaries between science and activism or nature of truth – to
name but a few. The crucial part of the learning experience consisted of recognizing various forms
those themes take in weekly manifestations of public sociology, both in the organic and traditional
realm. Moving beyond the conventional methods of involving students as ‘listeners’ towards a true
interaction whereby they also shape the meaning of the material, the course taught us how to ask
critical questions. From my perspective, allowing for spontaneity in formulation of questions shifted
the responsibility to students, making this a positive case of constitutive participation.
Investigating the links between various dimensions of sociological work turned out crucial for
the continuity of the course: the last review session was particularly helpful in demonstrating their
broad range. Rather than being ‘thrown into’ various worlds, we were able to ‘float’ between them,
drawing systematic implications for public sociology. This allowed us to make sense of the variety of
sociological contexts and learn how to approach research projects that seemed to be far apart at the
first sight. Thus the pace, diversity of themes and variety of sociological ‘faces’ turned out crucial for
the success of the learning process.
As instructors’ contribution played the key role in that, a more systematic emphasis on asking
questions of ‘correspondence’ could perhaps enhance the quality of the discussions even more. On
the other hand, the most fruitful discussions evolved naturally, without systematic ‘guidance’ of the
2
Dominika Partyga
SOC 185 Public Sociology, Live! – Final Paper: Course Evaluation
instructors. Our conversations were flourishing when we could relate to the material (as was the case
with Pun Ngai), or found the cases controversial (e.g. egalitarian character of CCM) – rather than
‘under pressure’ of coming up with questions for the sociologists. Therefore, in order to avoid a
sense of ‘artificiality’ in discussions yet keep on exploring correspondence between various kinds of
public sociology, I would propose to increase the number of review sessions to around 4. They could
consist of strategies that were used in the course: exploring parallels and divergences between
contexts, analyzing epistemological assumptions underlying the work of each sociologist and
situating the projects within the 2x2 table. The framework introduced by Professor Burawoy in the
opening lecture turned out particularly useful for that, yet it could be also valuable to bring other
critical approaches towards framing public sociology, such as ideas presented by Michel Wieviorka
(whose notion of theory validation evoked one of the most heated discussions). Considering the
questions in relation to a smaller number of sociologists - for instance after every 3 sessions – would
enhance the learning process, reconciling between the fast pace and critical reflection. Such slight
modification would also allow for true inclusion of the global, cosmopolitan element into the course
framework, as I will explain in the next section.
Global Dialogue
While the course was remarkably successful in engaging students into a vibrant conversation about
variety of public sociology projects, its global character escapes straightforward evaluation. The
discussion summaries from 6 different groups have generated mutual dialogue, showing that public
sociology ‘speaks to the hearts’ due to its meaningful commitment to publics and social change. The
diversity of issues brought up in response to the videos exemplifies the importance of the context in
which sociologists operate. Various themes emerging in the summaries entered our discussions in
Berkeley – from the role of internet in the network society to the question about global ethics of
public sociology. Yet the ‘give and take’ relationship between the group in Berkeley and other classes
could be improved in a way that opens for a more reciprocal dialogue, in which the international
classes play a more constitutive, instead of a purely responsive role.
Firstly, the participation could enhance if the global ‘voices’ were heard during our skype
conversations rather than only in the form of follow-up summaries and comments. A lesson we have
learned from facebook discussions is that the work of public sociologists can evoke various responses
depending on the context: it matters whether the ‘listening public’ works (or studies) in prointellectual France or at Ukrainian universities dominated by positivistic approach towards science.
Therefore, questions to public sociologists posed in discussion summaries from different parts of the
world reflect new assumptions, understandings and approaches. While some sociologists responded
on facebook to issues raised in this way (Marta Solez did so in a remarkably diligent manner), most
3
Dominika Partyga
SOC 185 Public Sociology, Live! – Final Paper: Course Evaluation
questions remained unaddressed. Changing that would open possibilities for new meanings - Castells
would call that ‘reprogramming’ of our network of sociological dialogue.
Such enhanced participation would require all students to read the same assigned articles,
engage in pre-discussion and formulate questions drawing on the readings and their local contexts.
Those questions would be then posed by Berkeley students who engage in the direct conversation
with sociologists, yet representing the ‘global network’. In this way, the local discussions that follow
after watching the video could focus around the sociologist’s answer to the group’s question. Such
modification would strengthen the extent towards which the discussions draw on similar themes as
the video conversations would also reflect on the interests of other groups. The participation of the
global network would thus gain a constitutive rather than purely responsive character.
On top of that, it could be valuable to enhance the ‘knowledge exchange’ between groups:
while the liaisons played an important role in facilitating the communication process, their
responsibilities could be extended. In my proposition, the liaisons would ‘bring back’ the issues and
questions from the discussion summaries of their group by relating them to major themes during the
4 review sessions. As the review sessions would have a retrospective character, this would create a
more reciprocal dialogue in which the themes and questions raised ‘locally’ enter the ‘course core’.
In such way, the course meaning would be co-created by four actors: instructors, sociologists, global
groups and students at Berkeley, moving beyond the present model of participation.
Personal meaning
Having outlined several structural changes that could enhance the learning process and
deepen the reciprocity of the global dialogue, I would like to consider the course from a more
personal perspective. Experiencing the vivid language of sociological narratives has been deeply
rewarding and inspiring as it has transformed my thinking about sociology in several ways.
Most importantly, listening to the stories of meaning marked by unconditional passion and
persistent dedication, I was witnessing how sociology can fulfill its ultimate moral mission. Whether
it is through co-production of knowledge with publics or traditional mediation in newspapers, public
sociologists pursue moral projects, from revealing inconvenient truths (Walden Bello) to improving
working conditions in Chinese factories (Pun Ngai). Despite all the divergences and contrasting
standpoints among them, most public sociologists reconcile between the scientific character of their
research and change-oriented, activist engagement with publics. Those stories are reassuring in the
face of an overwhelming presence of theory in undergraduate studies of sociology - at least from my
perspective of an exchange student from the Netherlands.
Many of us dream of bridging the gap between sociological theory and practice, of
reconciling between academia and real world: this course showed me that it is possible to live one’s
4
Dominika Partyga
SOC 185 Public Sociology, Live! – Final Paper: Course Evaluation
life on such dream. Yet there is a price to pay – which some would perhaps consider in terms of a
reward – as the boundaries between private and public become blurry. While making the private
public constitutes one of the goals of public sociology, this metaphor captures also the challenges
that sociologists face when their professional and private lives merge. As the stories of Nandini
Sundar, Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito or Pun Ngai have shown, once the sociological windmill is set in
motion, everything become subordinated to its goals - even if that includes work in dangerous
contexts, possibility of burnout or sacrifice of personal friendships. Yet what public sociologists ‘win
back’ is a deep sense of meaning, which cannot be separated from a close connection to publics.
Indeed, one of the lessons this course conveys is the importance of a moral commitment
towards a public. Living in increasingly opportunistic – but also cosmopolitan – times, we are often
detached from our communities. As one of those globetrotters, I can relate to a sense of ‘liquidity’ in
my sociological endeavors. Discovering how public sociology reconciles between global dialogue and
local contexts transformed the way I view the balance between international experiences and
relation to specific publics. While embedding oneself in a variety of social contexts contributes
towards a sociological understanding of the world, it is often a personal, tangible dedication to social
change that drives research passion. This is where an individual relation to a public – whether it is
shaped by national roots, socio-economic background, personal friendships or a deep moral
commitment towards fighting inequalities – comes into the picture. Most of our conversations – in
particular those with Nandini Sundar, Sari Hanafi and Frances Fox Piven - revealed personal roots of
their work. Hari Sanafi talked about an existential feeling that arises from building and maintaining a
close relationship with research participants: I think that such experience is the key to being an
organic public sociologist.
Inspired by their stories, I decided to pursue my research interests in disadvantaged groups
of youth in Poland and made the first step towards re-embedding myself in the community by
connecting with the Association of Public Sociologists at the Warsaw University. Thus the course has
not only transformed my perception of sociology, but also allowed me to find a relation to similarlyminded young researchers in my hometown, exemplifying the power of network society.
Conclusion
Participating in Public Sociology, Live! has been a truly stimulating experience which made
me question my previous assumptions about the boundaries between academia and activism,
encouraging me to link between my sense of community belonging and my sociological interests.
Demonstrating the ways in which individual efforts matter in a global strive towards social change,
the course inspires how to reconcile between theory and action by using a vivid language of
magnetizing, personal narratives.
5
Dominika Partyga
SOC 185 Public Sociology, Live! – Final Paper: Course Evaluation
Departing from the strongest points of the course – its content in Berkeley classroom and the
global character, I have outlined several ideas oriented towards intensifying the learning experience
and deepening the global dialogue. Through allowing global students to pose questions to
sociologists, international classes could become more constitutive actors in the course. As the
discussions around the world could interrelate in a deeper way, global insights would be then
reflected in review sessions taking place every 3 weeks. Thus new, contextual meanings of public
sociology would enter the ‘course core’ - the programme of the network in the language of Castells.
Increasing the number of review sessions would allow for a more systematic approach towards
investigating how the projects of various sociologists correspond.
Those suggestions reflect on the success of the course in interlinking between various
narratives. Investigating the correspondence between diverse ‘faces’ of public sociology has played a
crucial role for identifying ‘sociological lessons’. Those lessons have transcended the classrooms all
over the world, sensitizing students to the questions of power, truth and knowledge. The most
important lesson for me lies in recognizing how a sense of moral commitment drives public
sociology. Representing ‘the truth of heart’, the stories we heard embody what it means to do
sociology that matters, both locally and globally
Word Count: 2,477
6