How did you get into sociology?

At first, I majored in comparative linguistics with a minor in social sciences but quickly realized that I was much more into social sciences than any other topic. So, I changed my major. In social sciences – which in my undergraduate curriculum not only included sociology, but also political science and political economy – I was particularly fascinated with the discussions in class and how in this discussion mundane everyday experiences are combined with high theory and methodological scrutiny. This mixture was mind-blowing and weirdly familiar.

I was also captured by the conceptual tools and theoretical spaces that sociology had to offer. Many sociological perspectives not only fascinated me but triggered helpful intellectual resonance as they allowed me to make sense of my various lived experiences as migrant with a diasporic and mainly academic family history.

I stayed in sociology because it increasingly became a home of sorts, an intellectual and lived space I could not only fit into but also shape and build together with many others. As a PhD student, I only sensed what I have come to know as a senior: sociology is highly plural, we are best when we engage in productive debates, when we disagree within methodological and conceptual boundaries – even, and perhaps especially, when questioning these very boundaries. Due to its plurality and methodological standards, sociology is or can be enlightening.

What makes you sociologically curious?

I am driven by the complexity of the social, not only as general or mere theoretical idea, but also as lived and embodied experience, as the mundane normality of everyday. It is fascinating how rich and messy empirical realities are, especially in light of their normative, discursive and structural constitution. When sociologists focus on the latter, we tend to see the overpowering force of ’tidy‘ discourse, of tight ideological regimes or of ultra-stable structures like economic forces.

While I agree with such a view and how important it is, I am convinced that (embodied) practice (say, Schatzki e.g.) has its very own logic. Then again, no practice ever without frames (Goffman), pre-conditions, constraints, epistemic regimes etc. So, my curiosity is all about the ’Eigensinn‘, the specificity of each social sphere precisely as element of a complex social world with many spheres.

This also applies to my core research topics, especially to gender as a biosocial phenomenon. It is fascinating to see how so many different and specific logics intertwine and co-constitute each other when it comes to gender: social and economic inequality, intersectional regimes of social differences, power, praxis (’doing gender/doing differences’), embodiment, biology/soma, lived experience, biography, etc.

There’s so much to discover when we strive to leave our ideological beliefs behind, take closer looks (i.e. by empirical research), acknowledging the plurality of the social by applying plural and reflexive methods and developing sound theoretical arguments.

What challenges does sociology face as a science?

We have to resist authoritarian claims, both politically and academically. There is no one single fact, no one single evidence-based truth, no one single theory that can assess the complexity of the social. Our strength is that sociological knowledge is plural, it is debatable, it is reflexive.

Sociology is not useful in a naive sense, we do not construct better bridges or reduce poverty. But we do provide society with evidence-based insights and with thoroughly vetted interpretations / theories about the world we live in, about our own actions and institutions, about humans in society. We should defend our academic standards and logic, not giving in to political colonization e.g. claiming we need to be ’useful‘ or ’relevant‘. We can be useful and relevant, but only if we can do our research and teaching in full academic freedom.

Another problem we need to tackle is the increasing niche-formation and internal fragmentation within our discipline. While this is not a new problem – and corresponding debates are legendary – it is IMHO intensifying. We need more debate, more robust professional (!) conflict, bridging the very specific schools, perspectives, methods, etc. we tend to work in. We all have our professional comfort zones, and that’s fair enough. But we should venture out, check out ’the others’, engage in plural conversations more often. I should and regularly do so myself.

Paula-Irene Villa Braslavsky holds the chair for Sociology and Gender Studies at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich.