has been seen as fatally undermining any vestiges of positivism in sociology.
Meaning and Interpretation
For Cooley, Mead and the symbolic interactionist tradition more generally, the process of ‘self’ construction makes human beings ‘reflexive’ – actively engaged in social life and, at the same time, able to reflect on it. This individual reflexivity means that active human agents can confound scientists’ predictions of how they will or should behave, and it also shows that the thing called ‘society’ is a continuous social construction rather than a fixed, objective entity that is set apart from individuals. Self-fulfilling prophecies can illustrate some of the consequences of reflexivity as well. Rumours of trouble at a solidly solvent bank can lead to investors rushing to withdraw their money, which in turn fulfils the false prophecy by putting the bank into trouble (Merton [1949] 1957). Knowledge and information of all kinds have the potential to alter people’s decision-making processes and lead to unpredictable actions.
In the work of Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and others, reflexivity is a key concept for understanding contemporary societies. Giddens and Beck argue that ‘late’ modernity is a ‘de-traditionalized’ social context in which individuals are cut adrift from the social structure and, hence, forced to be continuously reflexive in relation to their own lives and identities. Beck calls this emergent form of society ‘reflexive modernization’, a ‘second modernity’ or a ‘risk society’ beyond the industrial form. The consequences of this heightened reflexivity for research practice are said to be profound. Sociological research findings become part of society’s stock of knowledge, which individuals carry around with them and which underpins their decision-making. The kind of recursive effects evident in self-fulfilling and self-defeating prophecies become part and parcel of social life as such. In this way a simple positivistic approach based on the objective study of an external world ‘out there’ appears misguided, as the gap between researcher and research subject is eroded. Similarly, the methods adopted by sociologists have to reflect this, which may be why qualitative methods such as biographical research, oral histories and the inclusion of the researcher’s own biography in the research process are growing in popularity. The concept of reflexivity has become central to both social theorizing and sociological research methods, pointing up the inevitable connections between the two.
Critical Points
The theory of reflexive modernization and the heightened individualization that is assumed by it is open to criticism on empirical grounds. While some of the social changes described by the theory are indisputable – the diversification of family life, shifting marriage and divorce rates, for example – the idea that the industrial society has given way to a new form of reflexive modernity is contentious. Has handling risk really become the new organizing principle of contemporary societies? Industrial production processes are now global in scope, with most manufacturing taking place in the developing countries, and it can be argued that industrial capitalism remains the best characterization of societies today. The thesis of individualization and enhanced reflexivity can also be exaggerated. Though people may not consciously identify with social class, for instance, in quite the same way that they did in the first half of the twentieth century, it does not follow that their lives and life chances are no longer shaped by class position. Indeed, there has been a backlash against the individualization thesis as sociologists have shown the continuing salience of class.
The adoption of reflexivity in sociological research has also had a mixed reception. For some, the rush to include the researcher’s own biography within the research process can all too easily tip over into self-indulgence and an irrelevant listing of personal details. In addition, a focus on reflexivity can lead into a neverending process of reflecting on reflection and interpretation layered on interpretation, which risks paralysing researchers who get caught up in their own practice at the expense of what many consider to be the real task of sociology, namely to produce valid and reliable knowledge of social life in order better to understand and explain it. It is also unclear how reflexive research practice could apply to the large-scale social and attitude surveys that are still necessary if we are to uncover the patterns and regularities that form the basis of societies.
Continuing Relevance
Reflexivity has become one aspect of many sociological studies, but the concept has also been adopted in other disciplines and fields of enquiry. For example, Whiting et al. (2018) drew on theories of reflexivity in their participatory video study of work–life boundary transitions. This study gave participants videocameras, allowing them to decide how best to handle the concepts that the research team asked them to focus on. This enabled participants to generate their own data about their lives rather than reproducing the conventional and unequal researcher–participant power relationship. The researchers were interested in how tensions in the three-way relationship between researchers–videocams–participants in the project were created and managed.
Participants in the research used the videocam as a ‘reflexive tool’ to create video accounts of one week in their life, thereby generating their own knowledge. In allowing participants effectively to become active researchers too, the researchers acknowledged their own relative lack of agency during the recording process. Whiting et al. (2018: 334) note that, ‘While we were encouraging reflexivity on the part of the participants to learn about their own work–life boundary transitions in a digital age, they were encouraging us to a more reflexive understanding of our own research practices.’ For the research team, adopting such a ‘relationally reflexive approach’ pushed them to consider their own underlying assumptions alongside the power relations involved in the research process.
Not all of those who adopt more reflexive research methods in their work would subscribe to Beck’s reflexive modernization theory or Giddens’s thesis of de-traditionalization. For many, reflexivity is simply part of the way they approach the job of studying society which helps them to be more aware of their own biases and theoretical assumptions. Certainly a dose of reflexivity can be healthy for researchers who might otherwise not be in the habit of reflecting on their longstanding habits and practices, as it helps to ensure they remain relevant and effective.
References and Further Reading
Beck, U. (1994) ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive Modernization’, in U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash, Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (Cambridge: Polity), pp. 1–55.
Buttel, F. H. (2002) ‘Classical Theory and Contemporary Environmental Sociology: Some Reflections on the Antecedents and Prospects for Reflexive Modernization Theories in the Study of Environment and Society’, in G. Spaargaren, A. P. J. Mol and F. H. Buttel (eds), Environment and Global Modernity (London: Sage), pp. 17–40.
Cooley, C. H. (1902) Human Nature and the Social Order (New York: Scribner’s).
Finlay, L., and Gough, B. (eds) (2003) Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell).
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society (Cambridge: Polity).
Mead, G. H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society, ed. C. W. Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Merton, R. H. ([1949] 1957) Social Theory and Social Structure (rev. edn, Glencoe, IL: Free Press).
Whiting, R., Symon, G., Roby, H., and Chamakiotis, P. (2018) ‘Who’s Behind the Lens? A Reflexive Analysis of Roles
