Does critique divert sociology from its scientific project? Or is critique the ultimate goal of sociology, without which the latter would be a futile activity disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people? This issue underpins two divergent theoretical orientations that can be found in the discipline today: the critical sociology developed in its most elaborate form by Pierre Bourdieu, and the pragmatic sociology of critique developed by Luc Boltanski and his associates.
In critical sociology, description in terms of power relations underscores the potency of mechanisms of oppression, the way the oppressed passively endure them, going so far in their alienation as to adopt the values that enslave them. Pragmatic sociology, by contrast, describes the actions of human beings who rebel but who are endowed with reason. It stresses their ability to rise up against domination and construct new interpretations of reality in the service of critical activity.
Boltanski develops a framework that makes it possible to reconcile seemingly antagonistic approaches - one determinist and assigning the leading role to the enlightening science of the sociologist, the other concerned to stick as closely as possible to what people say and do. This labour of unification leads
him to rework such notions as practice, institution, critique and, finally, 'social reality', all with the aim of contributing to a contemporary renewal of practices of emancipation.
