________________
HUMANISTIC SOCIOLOGY : PHANTOM MOVEMENT OR REALITY? 61
justified by the value-free nature of science is sheer rubbish-but rubbish packaged so attractively and distributed so widely from so many admirable retail outlets that the scientist himself has become a “true believer." He is even less aware of its role as a disguise cloaking his self-interest than is the general public (p. 163)... It would appear, then, that sociologists cannot even in principle claim the value-free label, that they must move beyond the priestly posture of neutrality and accept responsibility for value-laden action
that is essentially prophetic in nature (p. 197).
Also significant is the recent revival of one of the two major schools of thought in social science. These two basic views are usually termed the conflict school and the functional-structural (or consensus) school. It is the former which, for a number of decades, has been neglected. As implied in William Chamblis' persuasive account (1973: 1-34), one of the reasons conflict theory fell out of favor was because it is politically inconvenient to those in power. It is such because it shows so clearly that the ruling elements of all societies have special power and privilege primarily because they control the major means of coercion and not because of general agreement that they are especially deserving or meritorious.
In contrast, functionalist theory stresses that those who control society do so because there is consensus that they should; corollary to such a view is the idea that the state is a prime instrument for promoting the common good. With such views, many functionalists readily become "establishment sociologists"'*; because they generally confine their studies to abstract discussions of how a society's various parts contribute to the whole, they do not raise critical questions about who particularly benefits from given social arrangements. “Whether they are studying war, social class, or deviant behavior, functionalists typically ask what functions it serves; the conflict approach adds: for whom is it functional?" (Chamblis 1973:5; italics added). The latter question frequently has the effect of laying bare the myths used by those in power to help maintain their special privileges and control over the masses, hence conflict theory is inherently critical of the status quo, unlike functionalism's generally bland acceptance of it.
Humanistic Sociology It is of course a matter of judgment, but it seems to me that recent events in the discipline, as outlined above, give substance to the claim that humanistic sociology is a real movement, not a phantom. At the very least, there now appears to be a sizable number of sociologists whose major interest is the establishment of a sociology that is variously denoted as
"Lackey for the ruling class" is what they typically become, according to one radical analysis; as such, it is said, they often call for an "end to ideology; as a cover for their abandonment of radically-liberal social criticism in favor of a politically safer and personally more lucrative technocratic corporate-statism (see Kleinberg, 1973:10-12).