Accuracy, Critique and the Anti-Tribes in Sociology of Education: A Reply to Sara Delamont's ‘Anomalous Beasts’

Abstract

In a recent edition of Sociology (34, February 2000), Sara Delamont provides an interesting account of the relationship between the sub-discipline, sociology of education, and parent discipline, sociology. It is refreshingly original because articles which reflect on the relational structure of sociology as a discipline are rare, especially those which focus on sociology of education. That said, I disagree with substantial parts of her characterisation of sociology of education and I believe that some parts of it are so misleading that they need to be corrected.

In brief, she argues that ‘the hooligan is an anomalous beast for sociologists of education, who paradoxically revere him: while the sociology of education is an anomalous beast for the parent discipline, whose practitioners reject and fear it’ (Delamont 2000:95). Essentially, the latter part of her argument amounts to the claim that the wider discipline of sociology has neglected sociology of education. In this respect, Delamont raises some important issues for reflection by sociologists across the discipline. However, my response is concerned with her unsatisfactory characterisation of British sociology of education.