What do you mean ‘out of date’?

Today a little rant on one of my bugbears - the criticism that a sociological study is ‘out of date’.

Yes, it bugs me that one.

I’ve heard students on numerous occasions pipe up to this effect, as if it constitutes a complete demolition job on any findings or value of any sort from a study which is ‘old’. Which of course begs the question - where do you draw the line?

From the comments I’ve heard, you’d think that any study over a few years of age is thereby ruled out of court. You’d think that any statistics more than a couple of years old are to be resigned to the dustbin.

Of course, society changes all the time and so does sociology. And sociology teachers, and even sociology textbook writers, have only limited time in which to go off to academic libraries and read up on the latest research. And even then, the research can be - well, who’d have thought it - out of date.

The trouble with this criticism is that its too easy. As if the world as we know it has been so totally transformed by events over the last six months that nothing written before then will be of any - even historical perhaps - use.

With government statistics - stats from five or even more years ago, can and do, still often show the same trends. And research studies - e.g. on conjugal roles or educational attainment - while they may clearly miss out on some changes in detail - often capture the gist of things as they are now, even if the study is a few years old.

That said, those of us teaching sociology do have to try and keep up.

What I’d urge on students -and teachers too - though, is a bit of patience. Are C Wright Mills, or Durkheim, or Marx, now ‘out of date’. In a way, yes. But only in the sense that they weren’t published last year or even this year (yes, yes, I know. How literal do we have to be?). If one seriously contends that they are ‘out of date’ meaning redundant, and therefore only of historical interest, I think a serious mistake is being made. It misunderstands the role of theoretical and indeed empirical studies in sociology, and indeed the nature of sociology. Old books like those by the authors above are useful, because of the concepts and theories they give us. These are not to be regarded as timeless, but rather as contributions which we can modify. From Marx, we might get some useful ideas about class (and some less helpful ones!). Are Durkheim’s ideas about suicide and social integration ‘out of date’? I don’t think so. Sociology isn’t like natural science - we aren’t making new discoveries which mean that we can throw stupid old ideas out and set out our corrections. Sociology is more like a conversation and set of reflections, and a set of methods about how to do that. We reflect on the findings of sociology, and yes, indeed, some of these findings may become absorbed into ‘common sense’, but not always. The conversation goes on, society changes, but we can keep coming back to the growing set of concepts and methods - including the old and older ones - and reflect afresh.

So don’t throw out the old books. There are plenty of them - just decide which ones you find more persuasive and useful.