On the sociological canon, and the history of the discipline

What is it about?

Differing accounts are conventionally given of the origins of medical sociology and its parent discipline of sociology. These distinct ‘histories’ are justified on the basis that the sociological founders were uninterested in medicine, mortality and disease. This article challenges these ‘constructions’ of the past, proposing the theorization of health not as a ‘late development of sociology’ but an integral part of its formation. Drawing on a selection of key sociological texts, it is argued that evidence of the founders’ sustained interest in the infirmities of the individual, of mortality, and in medicine, have been expunged from the historical record through processes of ‘canonization’ and ‘medicalization’.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Provides an alternative history of the discipline, challenging conventional wisdom that classical sociologists didn’t theorise health. As often happens in this field, it has taken a few years but has now begun to stimulate debate and controversy.