Peter berger invitation to sociology pdf

Brillian

Invitation to Sociology Peter Berger (1963)

We would say then that the sociologist (that is, the one we would really like to invite to our

game) is a person intensively, endlessly, shamelessly interested in the doings of men. His natural habitat

is all the human gathering places of the world, wherever men* come together. The sociologist may be

interested in many other things. But his consuming interest remains in the world of men, their

institutions, their history, their passions. He will naturally be interested in the events that engage men’s

ultimate beliefs, their moments of tragedy and grandeur and ecstasy. But he will also be fascinated by

the commonplace, the everyday. He will know reverence, but this reverence will not prevent him from

wanting to see and to understand. He may sometimes feel revulsion or contempt. But this also will not

deter him from wanting to have his questions answered. The sociologist, in his quest for understanding,

moves through the world of men without respect for the usual lines of demarcation. Nobility and

degradation, power and obscurity, intelligence and folly—these are equally interesting to him, however

unequal they may be in his personal values or tastes. Thus his questions may lead him to all possible

levels of society, the best and the least known places, the most respected and the most despised. And, if

he is a good sociologist, he will find himself in all these places because his own questions have so taken

possession of him that he has little choice but to seek for answers.

We could say that the sociologist, but for the grace of his academic title, is the man who must

listen to gossip despite himself, who is tempted to look through keyholes, to read other people’s mail, to

open closed cabinets. What interests us is the curiosity that grips any sociologist in front of a closed door

behind which there are human voices. If he is a good sociologist, he will want to open that door, to

understand these voices. Behind each closed door he will anticipate some new facet of human life not

yet perceived and understood.

The sociologist will occupy himself with matters that others regard as too sacred or as too

distasteful for dispassionate investigation. He will find rewarding the company of priests or of

prostitutes, depending not on his personal preferences but on the questions he happens to be asking at

the moment. He will also concern himself with matters that others may find much too boring. He will be

interested in the human interaction that goes with warfare or with great intellectual discoveries, but

also in the relations between people employed in a restaurant or between a group of little girls playing

with their dolls. His main focus of attention is not the ultimate significance of what men do, but the

action in itself, as another example of the infinite richness of human conduct.

In these journeys through the world of men the sociologist will inevitably encounter other

professional Peeping Toms. Sometimes these will resent his presence, feeling that he is poaching on

their preserves. In some places the sociologist will meet up with the economist, in others with the

political scientist, in yet others with the psychologist or the ethnologist. Yet chances are that the

*To be understood as people or persons.

questions that have brought him to these same places are different from the ones that propelled his

fellow trespassers. The sociologist’s questions always remain essentially the same: “What are people

doing with each other here?” “What are their relationships to each other?” “How are these relationships

organized in institutions?” “What are the collective ideas that move men and institutions?” In trying to

answer these questions in specific instances, the sociologist will, of course, have to deal with economic

or political matters, but he will do so in a way rather different from that of the economist or the political

scientist. The scene that he contemplates is the same human scene that these other scientists concern

themselves with. But the sociologist’s angle of vision is different.

Much of the time the sociologist moves in sectors of experience that are familiar to him and to

most people in his society. He investigates communities, institutions and activities that one can read

about every day in the newspapers. Yet there is another excitement of discovery beckoning in his

investigations. It is not the excitement of coming upon the totally unfamiliar, but rather the excitement

of finding the familiar becoming transformed in its meaning. The fascination of sociology lies in the fact

that its perspective makes us see in a new light the very world in which we have lived all our lives. This

also constitutes a transformation of consciousness. Moreover, this transformation is more relevant

existentially than that of many other intellectual disciplines, because it is more difficult to segregate in

some special compartment of the mind. The astronomer does not live in the remote galaxies, and the

nuclear physicist can, outside his laboratory, eat and laugh and marry and vote without thinking about

the insides of the atom. The geologist looks at rocks only at appropriate times, and the linguist speaks

English with his wife. The sociologist lives in society, on the job and off it. His own life, inevitably, is part

of his subject matter. Men being what they are, sociologists too manage to segregate their professional

insights from their everyday affairs. But it is a rather difficult feat to perform in good faith.

The sociologist moves in the common world of men, close to what most of them would call real.

The categories he employs in his analyses are only refinements of the categories by which other men

live—power, class, status, race, ethnicity. As a result, there is a deceptive simplicity and obviousness

about some sociological investigations. One reads them, nods at the familiar scene, remarks that one

has heard all this before and don’t people have better things to do than to waste their time on truisms—

until one is suddenly brought up against an insight that radically questions everything one had

previously assumed about this familiar scene. This is the point at which one begins to sense the

excitement of sociology.

Let us take a specific example. Imagine a sociology class in a Southern college where almost all

the students are white Southerners. Imagine a lecture on the subject of the racial system of the South.

The lecturer is talking here of matters that have been familiar to his students from the time of their

infancy. Indeed, it may be that they are much more familiar with the minutiae of this system than he is.

They are quite bored as a result. It seems to them that he is only using more pretentious words to

describe what they already know. Thus he may use the term “caste,” one commonly used now by

American sociologists to describe the Southern racial system. But in explaining the term he shifts to

traditional Hindu society, to make it clearer. He then goes on to analyze the magical beliefs inherent in

caste tabus, the social dynamics of commensalism and connubium, the economic interests concealed

within the system, the way in which religious beliefs relate to the tabus, the effects of the caste system

upon the industrial development of the society and vice versa—all in India. But suddenly India is not

very far away at all. The lecture then goes back to its Southern theme. The familiar now seems not quite

so familiar anymore. Questions are raised that are new, perhaps raised angrily, but raised all the same.

And at least some of the students have begun to understand that there are functions involved in this

business of race that they have not read about in the newspapers (at least not those in their

hometowns) and that their parents have not told them—partly, at least, because neither the

newspapers nor the parents knew about them.

It can be said that the first wisdom of sociology is this—things are not what they seem. This too

is a deceptively simple statement. It ceases to be simple after a while. Social reality turns out to have

many layers of meaning. The discovery of each new layer changes the perception of the whole.

Anthropologists use the term “culture shock” to describe the impact of a totally new culture

upon a newcomer. In an extreme instance such shock will be experienced by the Western explorer who

is told, halfway through dinner, that he is eating the nice old lady he had been chatting with the

previous day—a shock with predictable physiological if not moral consequences. Most explorers no

longer encounter cannibalism in their travels today. However, the first encounters with polygamy or

with puberty rites or even with the way some nations drive their automobiles can be quite a shock to an

American visitor. With the shock may go not only disapproval or disgust but a sense of excitement that

things can reallybe that different from what they are at home. To some extent, at least, this is the

excitement of any first travel abroad. The experience of sociological discovery could be described as

“culture shock” minus geographical displacement. In other words, the sociologist travels at home—with

shocking results. He is unlikely to find that he is eating a nice old lady for dinner. But the discovery, for

instance, that his own church has considerable money invested in the missile industry or that a few

blocks from his home there are people who engage in cultic orgies may not be drastically different in

emotional impact. Yet we would not want to imply that sociological discoveries are always or even

usually outrageous to moral sentiment. Not at all. What they have in common with exploration in

distant lands, however, is the sudden illumination of new and unsuspected facets of human existence in

society. This is the excitement and . . . the humanistic justification of sociology.

People who like to avoid shocking discoveries, who prefer to believe that society is just what

they were taught in Sunday School, who like the safety of the rules and the maxims of what Alfred

Schuetz has called the “world taken-for-granted,” should stay away from sociology. People who feel no

temptation before closed doors, who have no curiosity about human beings, who are content to admire

scenery without wondering about the people who live in those houses on the other side of that river,

should probably also stay away from sociology. They will find it unpleasant or, at any rate, unrewarding.

People who are interested in human beings only if they can change, convert or reform them should also

be warned, for they will find sociology much less useful than they hoped. And people whose interest is

mainly in their own conceptual constructions will do just as well to turn to the study of little white mice.

Sociology will be satisfying, in the long run, only to those who can think of nothing more entrancing than

to watch men and to understand things human.

It may now be clear that we have, albeit deliberately, understated the case in the title of this

chapter. To be sure, sociology is an individual pastime in the sense that it interests some men and bores

others. Some like to observe human beings, others to experiment with mice. The world is big enough to

hold all kinds and there is no logical priority for one interest as against another. But the word “pastime”

is weak in describing what we mean. Sociology is more like a passion. The sociological perspective is

more like a demon that possesses one, that drives one compellingly, again and again, to the questions

that are its own. An introduction to sociology is, therefore, an invitation to a very special kind of passion.

THINKING ABOUT THE READING

Peter Berger claims that sociologists are tempted to listen to gossip, peek through keyholes, and look at

other people’s mail. This can be interpreted to mean that the sociologist has an insatiable curiosity

about other people. What are some other behaviors and situations that might capture the attention of

the sociologist? How does the sociologist differ from the psychologist or the economist or the historian?

Are these fields of study likely to be in competition with sociology or to complement it?