The sociology of emotions: A meta-reflexive review of a theoretical tradition in flux

Abstract

Based in a novel 'meta-reflexive' review of sociology of emotions (SoE) articles, we suggest that there are two primary SoE theoretical traditions that function within geographic silos: the USA is distinctly social psychological, while in the UK and Australia, SoE is more aligned with the humanities. In both traditions, parallel calls are emerging for interdisciplinarity and further engagement with physiological and pre-personal elements of emotion. Based in Archer's and Bourdieu's concepts of reflexivity, we assert the merits of reflexively examining SoE, and then identify key changes in SoE that have emerged across time and geography. Using Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts, we conclude that SoE is entering a stage of growth and change, and raise important questions about the subdiscipline's future direction.

Discrepancies Between Japanese Undergraduate Students’ Ideal Affect and Actual Affect in Social Contexts and Life Domains

“…Sixth, our ESM study is cross-sectional; therefore, causal inference is limited. Lastly, Olson et al (2017) recently called for the sociology of emotion to become more interdisciplinary (e.g., by engaging in alignments with, among others, biology, psychology, and neuroscience). Doing so would also seem beneficial for future research that focuses on leisure-based affect.…”

Casualties of debate: A critique of the sociology of emotion

“…The sociology of emotion has a long and complicated history (Bericat, ; Olson, McKenzie, & Patulny, ; Walby et al, ) that has resulted in an exaggerated bifurcation between positivist and constructionist approaches to emotion (Denzin, ; Gibson, ; Loseke & Kusenbach, ; Lyon, ; Thoits, ; Tudor, ; Stets & Turner, ; Wettergren, ). While space limitations prevent an overview of any nuance, the overarching distinctions between the two approaches are fairly clear: Positivists seek to “explain and predict” emotions according to their “biological,” “neurological,” and “hardwired” character (Erickson & Cottingham, ; Kemper, , ; Stets, ), whereas constructionists conceptualize emotion as a cultural process and product that shapes and is shaped by language (Loseke & Kusenbach, , p. 513).…”

“…More surprising is the frequency with which constructionists are either cautioned against ignoring biology, physiology, neurobiology, anatomy, evolution, and so on or explicitly criticized for doing so (Lively, ; Kemper, ; Olson et al, ; Scheff, ; Stets, ; Stets & Turner, ; J. H. Turner & Stets, , .) To be fair, all are indeed correct in asserting constructionists, like the vast majority of sociologists, and are not hindered by physiological processes, which rather mirrors the ways in which physiologists are similarly unhindered by sociological processes.…”

“…And the list goes on. It is actually fairly difficult to find contemporary sociological writing on emotion that is not grounded in one or more dichotomies that go without a hint of interrogation (Craciun, 2018;Erickson & Cottingham, 2016;Harkness & Hitlin, 2016;Lively & Heise, 2004;Olson et al, 2017;Rogers & Robinson, 2016;Simon & Nath, 2004). There are, however, many others who seem compelled to diligently acknowledge dualisms as problematic (perhaps to placate critical audiences in their introductions), before flinging them about with great irony and carelessness.…”

“…More surprising is the frequency with which constructionists are either cautioned against ignoring biology, physiology, neurobiology, anatomy, evolution, and so on or explicitly criticized for doing so (Lively, 2015;Kemper, 1981;Olson et al, 2017;Scheff, 2000;Stets, 2010;Stets & Turner, 2008;J. H. Turner & Stets, 2005, 2006.)…”