Sociological Forum, Vol. 29, No. 4, December 2014
DOI: 10.1111/socf.12130
© 2014 Eastern Sociological Society
Beyond the Comtean Schema: The Sociology of Culture and
Cognition Versus Cognitive Social Science1
Omar Lizardo2
In this essay, I argue that the very form of the grammatical construction “a sociology of culture and cogni-
tion” (which is a specification of the more general schema “a sociology of [X]”) is symptomatic of a deeply
entrenched form of “Primitive Classification” (which I will refer to as the “Comtean schema”) that governs
the way in which sociologists conceive of their place in, and engage with other denizens of, the social science
landscape. I will also argue that while this style of disciplinary engagement might have worked in the past
when it came to dealing with the standard (nineteenth-century) social science disciplines and even some late-
twentieth-century upstarts, it will not work as a way to engage the now-sprawling postdisciplinary field that I
will refer to as “Cognitive Social Science” (CSS). The takeaway point is that if sociologists want to be part
of CSS (and it is in their interest to be part of it because this constitutes the future of the behavioral sci-
ences), then they will have to give up the Comtean-schematic thought style.
KEY WORDS: classification; cognition; cognitive social science; culture; interdisciplinary.
INTRODUCTION
I will begin by doing the pedantic thing and refuse to answer the thematic ques-
tion of the forum. I will then reframe the question into one that I actually can pro-
vide an answer to. The reason for my refusal is simple: I believe that the very form
of the grammatical construction “a sociology of culture and cognition” (which is a
specification of the more general schema “a sociology of [X]”) is symptomatic of a
deeply entrenched form of “Primitive Classification” (which I will refer to as the
“Comtean Schema”) that governs the way in which sociologists conceive of their
place in, and engage with other denizens of, the social science landscape. This style
of disciplinary engagement, while seemingly open to interdisciplinary influences, is
actually close minded and only succeeds at creating a sense of pseudo-interdisci-
plinarity, trapping sociologists within a closed disciplinary circle of their own
making.
I will also argue that while this style of disciplinary engagement might have
worked in the past when it came to dealing with the standard (nineteenth-century)
1
Based on remarks delivered at a special session on “What Should the Sociology of Culture and
Cognition Look Like?” organized by Karen A. Cerulo at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Sociologi-
cal Society, Baltimore, MD, February 2014.
2
Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame 810 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556;
e-mail: olizardo@nd.edu.
983
984 Lizardo
social science disciplines and even some late-twentieth-century upstarts, it will not
work as a way to engage the now-sprawling postdisciplinary field that I will refer to
as (following M. Turner [2003]) “Cognitive Social Science” (CSS). The takeaway
point is that if sociologists want to be part of CSS (and it is in their interest to be
part of it because this constitutes the future of the behavioral sciences), then they
will have to give up the Comtean-schematic thought style.
COMTEAN PRIMITIVE CLASSIFICATION AS A FORM OF (PSEUDO-)
INTERDISCIPLINARY ENGAGEMENT
How do sociologists engage other disciplines? A cursory look at the (continu-
ally expanding) list of ASA sections reveals the rudiments of an answer to this ques-
tion. In addition to the usual “theme/problem” sections (e.g., Sex and Gender, Race
and Ethnicity, Work and Occupations, Mental Health, Development, and so on)
there are a set of “subdisciplinary” sections (e.g., Economic Sociology, Political
Sociology, etc.). In fact, we can find an “avatar” (in the sense of Abbott 2005) of
each of the major nineteenth-century social science disciplines represented here.
Each avatar conforms to the “a sociology of [X]” schema. Economic sociology rep-
resents the “a sociology of economic life,” the culture section is built around the
notion of a “sociology of culture,” political sociology represents a “sociology of
political life,” and so on. I call this basic schema “Comtean” because it presumes
that sociology is not just a field among other social science fields, but a “meta-field”
that can incorporate other social science fields into its ambit, insofar as every other
Fig. 1. The place of Cognitive Sociology in the sub-disciplinary division of labor of the Comtean
schema.
Beyond the Comtean Schema 985
social science discipline studies “society” or “the social” in some form or another
(see Fig. 1).
We can read the history of the various incorporations as attempts by sociology
to deal with disturbances in the disciplinary landscape (especially disturbances that
challenge the basic premises of the Comtean schema). Thus, when economics began
its push to conquer adjacent social science fields in the late 1970s and early 1980s
(under the influence of the recently departed Gary Becker), sociologists reacted by
generating a homegrown “economic sociology.” When cultural studies began to
blossom in the late 1970s, the same thing happened (the creation of a “Sociology of
Culture” section); the efflorescence of interest in linguistics and pragmatics of
language use following the decline of behaviorism resulted in the same thing (the
emergence of Sociolinguistics under the umbrella of ethnomethodology and conver-
sation analysis). These novel sociological subfields joined the already-established
Comtean attempts to incorporate the long-institutionalized social science disciplines
such as Psychology (leading to Social Psychology); History (leading to Comparative
Historical Sociology or “Social Science History”), and the “Sciences of the State”
(Comparative Politics, Political Science, and Political Theory) in the form of “Polit-
ical Sociology.”
But do not be fooled: These subdisciplinary avatars have been created by
sociologists for sociological consumption. In contrast to the truly interdisciplin-
ary “interfields” that exist in other corners of science (such as molecular biology
or network science, where actual cooperation occurs between persons who
belong to distinct disciplines), the sociological avatars are continually plagued
by questions of their relationship to social science disciplines of which they are
supposed to be the “sociological” offshoots. The result are recurrent ritualistic
sessions at the ASA meetings on “political sociology and political science,” “eco-
nomic sociology and economics,” “sociological social psychology and psycholog-
ical social psychology,” and so forth. Ultimately these attempts at “dialogue”
devolve into the sociological avatars and their respective nonsociology guests
passing one another like two ships in the night.3 In this sense, the Comtean
schema has created the bizarre situation of sociologists basking proudly in their
presumed interdisciplinary openness, while de facto having created a monodisci-
plinary field with relatively little real interaction with representatives of other
social science disciplines.
Under the Comtean schema, the “Sociology of Culture and Cognition” is
actually a sub-subfield that emerges as the illicit offspring of the so-called “Sociol-
ogy of Culture” and the attempt by sociologists to incorporate Cognitive Science
under the Comtean schema (more on that below) in the form of an abortive
“Cognitive Sociology.” This (rather unflattering) image of the sociology of culture
and cognition in fact corresponds to the actually existing embodiment of Cogni-
tive Sociology as a sociological thought collective. This only exists as a loosely
bound invisible college of people with heterogeneous interests in the cognitive sci-
ence/sociology connection (a good chunk of whom are part of this forum) and as
3
See, for instance, Zuckerman (2004) on the (failed) connection between Economics and Economic
Sociology.
986 Lizardo
an overgrown ASA roundtable (part of the “research networks” organization
within the culture section). It is clear that if it was not for Karen Cerulo’s indefat-
igable efforts to keep it together, the whole thing would have broken apart a long
time ago.
COGNITIVE SOCIAL SCIENCE AND THE COGNITIVE TURN(S)
What is different about Cognitive Science? The main difference is that in con-
trast to the nineteenth-century disciplines, which went through a period of gradual
institutionalization, high-boundary maintenance, and the creation of strong disci-
plinary traditions, Cognitive Science was since the beginning an interdisciplinary
federation (including at the very least Psychology, Philosophy, Anthropology,
Linguistics, and Artificial Intelligence) and not a “discipline” in the standard nine-
teenth-century sense. Each of these disciplines in its turn had to go through a “cog-
nitive turn” in order to make them ready to join the federation. This happened in
Psychology and Linguistics first during the 1950s. This is an important observation,
because it is misleading to think of Psychology today as naturally cognitive, when in
fact Psychology was anti-cognitive (“behaviorist”) throughout most of the twentieth
century. The same goes for Linguistics, which was a generally anti- or noncognitive
until the Chomskyan intervention in the 1950s.4
The same thing happened in Anthropology. “Cognitive Anthropology” was
a subfield that had (and continues) to struggle against highly entrenched anti-
cognitive traditions within the discipline, from Boasian anti-mentalistic “culturol-
ogy,” to various forms of biological and ecological reductionism, along with the
perennial anti-science rhetoric.5 Economics has been noncognitive (and sometimes
hostilely anti-cognitive) throughout most of its existence (Mirowski 2002). It
wasn’t until the late 1970s due to the influence of Herbert Simon, Kahneman,
Tversky, and others—via the development of so-called “Behavioral Economics”
(which is really Cognitive Economics)—that that spell was broken. Today, Cogni-
tive (and now “Neuro”) Economics is one of the fastest-growing subfields in the
discipline. Finally, in Philosophy, the Philosophy of Mind, an action had to
break with long-entrenched anti-cognitive, dualistic, anti-mentalistic (and, ulti-
mately, anti-naturalistic) prejudices inherited from the both the classical Descar-
tian and Kantian traditions as well as post-Wittgensteinian approaches to the
“Philosophy of Mind and Action.”6 While today the Philosophy of Mind is
essentially cognitive scientific meta-theory (Clark 2001), this was not always, or
naturally, the case.
I mention these “success” stories for two reasons. First, to underscore the fact
that there is nothing natural or inexorable about “cognitive turns” in the social sci-
ence disciplines. Some disciplines have never undergone one (e.g., Political Science,
History) and most (with the exception of Psychology and Linguistics) undergo only
partial ones. In my estimation Sociology has never had a true cognitive turn, and
4
Today “Cognitive Linguistics” is a sprawling subfield at the cutting edge of linguistic theory (see Evans
and Green 2006).
5
See Chapter 1 of D’Andrade 1995 for a succinct history.
6
See Bernstein (1971: Chapter IV) for the definitive treatment.
Beyond the Comtean Schema 987
given the ideological and institutional organization of the field it is unlikely to have
one in the near future. Second, it is important to emphasize the fact that cognitive
turns (even partial ones) are generally a good thing for social science disciplines. All
of the disciplines mentioned above have benefited greatly from undergoing a cogni-
tive turn: Some of the most important advances in Cultural Theory have occurred
within Cognitive Anthropology (Bloch 2012; D’Andrade 1995); the benefits of the
Behavioral (Cognitive) turn in Economics and Decision Theory are hard to over-
state. Clearly, no area of Psychology (from Personality Science, to the Psychology
of Action, Motivation, Self-Regulation, and Morality) has been left untouched (for
the better) by the cognitive turn.7 Religious Studies have been shaken out of its dol-
drums due to the development of the “Cognitive Science of Religion” (Pyysi€ainen
2003). The examples could be multiplied indefinitely. Even fields usually classified
as the “Humanities” such as Literary Theory, Rhetoric, and even Performance
Studies have all undergone incipient cognitive (and more recently “neural”) turns.
Thus, with M. Turner (2003) and S. Turner (2007), I would argue that the
future of the social sciences (and the so-called “humanities”) is cognitive. Breaking
with the nineteenth-century prejudice of separating studies of “mind” from those of
“society” (or deriving one from the other as Durkheim, James, and Mead tried to
do in their distinct ways), it is clear that if anything has a future it is a Cognitive
Social Science. Under this anti-Comtean schema (see Fig. 2) the nineteenth-century
disciplines fit as subdisciplinary elaborations of a larger interfield/disciplinary feder-
ation centered on the study of cognitive processes and the cognition/society inter-
face (broadly conceived). A properly “cognitively turned” sociology would be one
among equals; no longer the pseudo–Queen of the (social) sciences.
Is this future plausible? In many ways it is already happening; in this sense, a
Cognitive Social Science is a fait accompli (M. Turner 2003). Nevertheless, the
makeup and composition of CSS is still up in the air. Will Sociology be represented?
This is up to sociologists themselves. One thing that is certain is that the CSS issue
cannot be resolved via the internal avatar-generation route; creating a section on
culture and cognition or cognitive sociology housed within the ASA structure will
not make sociology ready for CSS.
That said, we must be realistic about at least three obstacles standing in the
way of sociology becoming a workable part of CSS. All of these are liable to be
underestimated by sociologists under the influence of the Comtean schema (mostly
because they are the result of the very same schema).
Sociology’s routine sense of disciplinary self-sufficiency generates disincentives against true
interdisciplinary learning. Most sociologists today have as much knowledge of Cognitive Sci-
ence as Emile Durkheim and George H. Mead did; they operate with a (workable for their lim-
ited purposes) nineteenth-century theory of cognition (S. Turner 2007). Sociological interest
(outside of the small culture and cognition group) in reading and learning about twenty-first-
century Cognitive (Neuro)Science is generally low; neuro-cognitive illiteracy runs rampant.
CSS does not actually need sociology in order to thrive. This means that CSS scholars will not
come to sociologists in search of their “unique” intuitions. This is for two reasons. First socio-
logical intuitions are actually not that unique (they are public knowledge and can easily be
learned and applied by others). Second, there’s an asymmetry in knowledge. Sociologists know
7
For the case of Moral Psychology, see Haidt (2012).
988 Lizardo
Fig. 2. The place of Cognitive Sociology in the disciplinary division of labor of Cognitive Social
Science.
less cognitive science (see point 1) than cognitive scientists know social science (and there’s
more cognitive science to learn than the reverse), if only because there have always been social
scientists (via Anthropology) working in cognitive science all along but there are no cognitive
scientists working in Sociology.
There are well-entrenched theoretical forces in Sociology working against a cognitive turn.
In fact, Sociology has a currently active avatar of probably every single one of the discred-
ited anti-cognitive positions that had to be defeated in Psychology, Anthropology, Econom-
ics, and Philosophy for those disciplines to undergo cognitive turns in the twentieth
century. These include good old-fashioned anti-naturalisms (of all flavors: phenomenologi-
cal, interpretive, anti-science, etc.) along with equally old-fashioned anti-mentalistic “cultu-
rologies” recycled from early twentieth-century anthropological theory. This is without
counting all sorts of Durkheimian thought dinosaurs that see “Psychology” (as “individual-
ism”) as the discipline’s main explanatory foe and which leads social theorists to generate a
whole panoply of ontologically spurious anti-cognitive pseudo-objects (e.g., “relations,”
“networks,” “structures,” as opposed to, say, persons) to serve as the discipline’s “true”
object of study.
CONCLUSION
The “Sociology of Culture and Cognition” will probably exist in the future,
and people differ with regard to what the field should look like (see Cerulo 2014;
Danna 2014; Ignatow 2014; Pitts-Taylor 2014; and Shepherd 2014 for other
Beyond the Comtean Schema 989
perspectives). But as a sub-subfield buried deep within the recesses of the subsump-
tive hierarchy of the Comtean schema, it has no future. But neither does Sociology
(in the long run) unless it itself undergoes a true cognitive turn and joins the postdis-
ciplinary entity that does have a future in the twenty-first century and beyond:
Cognitive Social Science.
REFERENCES
Abbott, Andrew. 2005. “Linked Ecologies: States and Universities as Environments for Professions.”
Sociological Theory 23: 3: 245–274.
Bernstein, Richard J. 1971. Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bloch, Maurice. 2012. Anthropology and the Cognitive Challenge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Cerulo, Karen A. 2014. “Continuing the Story: Maximizing the Intersections of Cognitive Science and
Sociology.” Sociological Forum 29: 4: 1012–1019.
Clark, Andy. 2001. Mindware. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
D’Andrade, Roy G. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Danna, Karen. 2014. “The Study of Culture and Cognition.” Sociological Forum 29: 4: 1001–1006.
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind. New York: Random House.
Ignatow, Gabriel. 2014. “Ontology and Method in Cognitive Sociology.” Sociological Forum 29: 4: 990–
994.
Mirowski, Philip. 2002. Machine Dreams. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pitts-Taylor, Victoria. 2014. “Cautionary Notes on Navigating the Neurocognitive Turn.” Sociological
Forum 29: 4: 995–1000.
Pyysi€ainen, Ikka. 2003. How Religion Works. Boston: Brill.
Shepherd, Hana. 2014. “Culture and Cognition: A Process Account of Culture.” Sociological Forum 29:
4: 1007–1011.
Turner, Mark. 2003. Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Stephen. 2007. “Social Theory as a Cognitive Neuroscience.” European Journal of Social Theory
10: 3: 357–374.
Zuckerman, Ezra W. 2004. “Towards the Social Reconstruction of an Interdisciplinary Turf War.”
American Sociological Review 69: 3: 458–465.
