Stephen Harper really seems to have it out for sociology. In 2013, in
response to an alleged plot against a VIA train, Harper remarked that we
should not “commit sociology,” but pursue an anti-crime approach. And
last week, in response to the death of Tina Fontaine, Harper argued that
an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women is not needed,
because this is not a “
” but simply a series of individual crimes.
Of course, not only is
all crime a sociological phenomenon
, but also without a broader sociological analysis we can’t begin to
understand why the rates of missing and murdered indigenous women are
tragically high compared to non-indigenous women. Furthermore, it’s
clear that if rates of violence against non-indigenous women climbed as
high as those of indigenous women, this government (even with its woeful
record on women’s issues) would be more likely to announce not only a
public inquiry but a full-scale national strategy. (This double-standard
in how we value human lives is what sociologists call “racism.”)
Harper’s two disparaging comments about sociology, however, also need
to be understood alongside his gutting of the long-form census in 2010.
It is widely accepted that this action fundamentally undermined Canada’s
ability to understand its own demographics, long-term social trends,
and inequalities — in short, its sociology.
So what does Harper have against sociology? First, Harper is clearly
trumpeting a standard component of neo-liberal ideology: that there are
no social phenomena, only individual incidents. (This ideology traces
back to Margaret Thatcher’s famous claim that “there is no such thing as
society.”) Neo-liberalism paints all social problems as individual
problems. The benefit of this for those who share Harper’s agenda, of
course, is that if there are no social problems or solutions, then there
is little need for government. Individuals are solely responsible for
the problems they face.
This ideology is so seductive not only because it radically simplifies
our world, but also because it mirrors the two social institutions
neo-liberals actually believe in — the “free” market and law and order.
Everything is reduced to either a simplistic market transaction or a
criminal case. In the former, you either have the money to buy stuff, or
you don’t and it’s up to you to get more. In the latter, a lone
individual is personally responsible for a crime and is punished for it.
Easy peasy. No sociology needed.
But there’s yet another reason this ideology is so hostile toward the
kind of sociological analysis done by Statistics Canada, public
inquiries and the like. And that has to do with the type of injustices
we can even conceive of, or consider tackling, as a society.
You see, sociologists often differentiate between “personal
injustices” and “systemic” or “structural injustices.” Personal
injustices can be traced back to concrete actions of particular
individuals (perpetrators). These actions are often wilful, and have a
relatively isolated victim.
Structural injustices, on the other hand, are produced by a social
structure or system. They are often hard to trace back to the actions of
specific individuals, are usually not explicitly intended by anyone,
and have collective, rather than isolated, victims. Structural
injustices are a result of the unintended actions of many individuals
participating in a social system together, usually without knowing what
each other is doing. Whereas personal injustices are traced back to the
harmful actions (or inactions) of individuals, structural injustices are
identified by differential societal outcomes among groups. Sociologists
call these “social inequalities.”
And therein lies the rub. Perhaps the key difference between personal
and structural injustices is that the latter are only clearly
identifiable through macro-level societal analysis — that is, sociology.
This is because a) there are no clear perpetrators with whom to
identify the injustice and assign responsibility; and b) while
structural injustices do generate concrete harms and victims, we often
only learn about the collective nature of the injustice through
statistical inquiry, or by identifying social/demographic patterns over
What should be clear, then, is that Harper’s seemingly bizarre
vendetta against sociology is actually an ideological attempt to prevent
Canadian society from being able to identify, and tackle, its
structural injustices. Without large-scale sociological analyses, we
can’t recognize the pervasive, entrenched social inequalities that these
analyses reveal. And because structural injustices are actually
generated by our social systems, both their causes and solutions are
Thus, when we paint all social problems as individual problems with
individual solutions, we also lose any sense of the social
responsibility, rather than personal responsibility, that we need to
The payoff in all this for Harper and other neo-liberals is that the
kinds of injustices this ideology is particularly good at creating are
precisely structural injustices. Indeed, one of neo-liberalism’s
greatest capacities is to generate systemic inequalities that are not
easily identifiable, in fact are rather difficult to discern, on the
level of personal interactions and isolated cases. Harper’s attack on
sociology, then, should be viewed not only as an attempt to further his
ideology, but to cover the social damage that is left in its wake.
is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics & Government at Illinois State University.