Abstract

Sociology does not know much about itself. Most empirical research about sociology focuses on American sociology and presents the discipline as a multi-paradigmatic and loose pseudoscientific endeavour. All available explanations of this state of affairs, moreover, leave little hope of a major breakthrough. While some sociologists vociferously call for a Copernican, if unlikely, revolution, the great majority seems to opt for a mix of loyalty and exit, playing the part of the "social scientist" inside, and for, diverse non-scientific environments (i.e. political, social, and activist groups, policy making agencies, State funded research councils, etc.). The author's hypothesis is that sociologists do not see themselves as "intellectuals", i.e. people who put cultural concerns above social ones in performing their primary role. This makes the average sociologist an unlikely debater and a poor scientist. While calling for an empirical test of his hypothesis, the author declares his personal preference for a deeper understading of the role of the intellectual on behalf of sociologists.