In sociology, the term “value free” refers to the idea that the methods and practices of science should not be influenced by the personal values or biases of the sociologist conducting the research. This concept is also known as “value neutrality.”
The principle of being value-free was proposed by Max Weber, a German sociologist, who argued that to establish sociology as a credible scientific discipline, sociologists must conduct their research free from personal beliefs, opinions, and values.
This means that sociologists should aim to observe, describe, and explain social phenomena without letting their own biases or preconceived notions influence their findings.
In other words, value-free sociologists should strive to present the facts as they are, not as they think they should be. They should aim to provide an objective, unbiased view of the social world, regardless of their own personal beliefs or values.
This idea is still held by many sociologists who believe that sociology should be as scientific as possible.
The critics of value freedom often start their argument by pointing out that sociologists are part of society, just like everyone else. This means they’re influenced by the same social factors as the people they’re studying.
Feminism
Feminists argue that sociology is not value-free, as it often reflects male biases. They argue that traditional sociology has been biased against women, serving as an ideological justification for the subordination of women.
Feminists believe sociology should challenge and confront male supremacy and women’s inequality. They argue for a feminist sociology for women, not just about women.
Interpretivism
Interpretivists challenge the idea of value-free sociology, arguing that it’s both impossible and undesirable. They point out that sociologists, as members of society, are inevitably influenced by the same social factors as the people they’re studying.
For example, in his article ‘Whose side are we on?’ Howard Becker argues that sociologists can’t truly be neutral or detached when researching. Their interpretation of events will always be influenced by their own personal feelings and beliefs.
However, interpretivists also acknowledge that being part of society doesn’t necessarily prevent objectivity. Just as a doctor can objectively study the causes of a patient’s illness despite their desire for the patient’s health, a sociologist can objectively study the causes of social conflict despite their belief in social justice.
Interpretivists argue that value freedom is not about the absence of values or feelings, but about the ability to support ideas with evidence rather than feelings.
While this is often achieved through experiments in natural sciences, sociology’s inability to always conduct experiments leads some to argue that sociology can’t avoid subjective judgments.
Derek Phillips, for instance, argues in his book “Abandoning Method” that the social process of data collection can lead to bias and invalidity due to the influence of social interactions.
Interpretivists like Alvin Gouldner, in his essay ‘Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Value Free Sociology‘, argue that sociologists should be honest about their personal and political beliefs instead of pretending to be value free.
Gouldner believes that the concept of value freedom has helped establish sociology as a discipline and hindered it by encouraging sociologists to ignore important moral issues.
Ultimately, interpretivists argue that the desirability of value freedom in sociology depends on one’s view of the purpose of knowledge. If one believes that sociology should be used to promote certain values, then value freedom might be seen as undesirable.
But if one believes that the purpose of sociology is to contribute to our understanding of the world, then striving for value freedom might be seen as essential.
The New Right
The New Right argues that sociology is not value-free but rather left-wing propaganda.
They criticize sociology for its perceived left-wing bias and argue that it serves as a destructive force in society, exaggerating the defects of capitalism and ignoring its many benefits.
Postmodernism
Postmodernists believe there is no objective reality and that all knowledge is socially constructed. Indeed, a subscription to objective truth is tantamount to ideology. On the other hand, modernists believed in objective reality and the power of reason to discover truths about the world (Brooker, 2014).
Postmodernists assert that all facets of human psychology are socially determined and that, contrary to modernist philosophy, there is no such thing as human nature comprising aptitudes, faculties, and dispositions which are neither learned nor instilled by society.
Sources
Becker, H. S. (1966). Whose side are we on. Soc. Probs., 14, 239.
Gouldner, A. W. (1961). Anti-minotaur: The myth of a value-free sociology. Soc. Probs., 9, 199.
Phillips, D. L. (1973). Abandoning method. Jossey-Bass.
