overview of the Historical and Contextual development ● 17He suggested that this was an ideology in itself and an expression of a value
bias, which dictated to sociologists how they should live and practice. He
claimed that he knew no sociologist who was in reality value-free. He traced
the notion of value-neutral sociology to Max Weber, whom others cited in
support of value freedom; however, he recognized that Weber had not in
fact advocated moral indifference but had cautioned against imposing moral
values. Unlike Weber, he believed teachers should declare their values to their
students rather than risk that their biases would influence students in hidden
ways. He wondered whether Weber’s concerns arose out of his cultural context
and time—Germany in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries—
when students might be more readily influenced by their professors than were
American students of the 1960s.
Gouldner developed a program in reflexive sociology that was a direct
reaction against the idea of the possibility of objectivity. He called on sociolo-
gists to take account of the way in which the sociological inquirer is involved
in the development of his or her own ideas (Chriss 2002; Pedraza 2002). Gould-
ner’s influence remained relatively limited in comparison with that of his con-
temporary, C. Wright Mills, although their ideas about the impossibility of a
value-neutral sociology were similar. Mills eventually became more famous
among sociologists, other social scientists, and the public. It has been sug-
gested that this was because, somewhat ironically, Gouldner concentrated on
theorizing in an attempt to influence the thinking of his academic colleagues,
who ignored him. By contrast, Mills emphasized connections between theory
and public concerns in a way that clarified practical implications. He also
wrote in a style that was accessible to a wide audience (Gill 2013). Mills advo-
cated that social scientists should connect personal troubles to public issues,
and his idea of the sociological imagination became well known (Mills 1959).
He was a pragmatist, who held that the worth of a theory should be evaluated
by the extent of its usefulness in helping people to overcome difficult social
circumstances (Watson 2008). His writing continues to be cited by sociologists,
social workers, and other social scientists (Kelly and Stanley 2012).
By the 1970s, in part because of anticommunist purges that were occur-
ring worldwide and that were particularly prominent in the United States,
the brief surge in more radical leftist sociology subsided, leaving only small
numbers of activist, critical, populist, and humanist sociologists (Oppenheimer
and Stark 1999).
Radical Social Work
Meanwhile, social workers had continued their efforts to gain recognition
of their field as a profession. They never stepped back from the idea that