Dialogues in Sociology

In my recent work, I argued that the bulk of the responses of the social sciences to the pathologies of late modernity was defined as being classically liberal but politically illiberal—I call this peculiar combination “Symbolic Liberalism.” Corollary to that, we witness a hierarchical polarization in various societies, manifested by the widening of the space between different elites. It is present everywhere including in university campuses and the media where we witness suffocation of academic freedom and intolerance in debates. Interestingly, such intolerance is shown by both the Left and the Right, as it is evident in the subscription to what is known as “cancel culture” by both camps but to different degrees. To illustrate this, I will give two examples mainly from the United States and the United Kingdom to show how such cancel culture has spread widely in liberal democratic countries, and a case study related to the current war on Gaza.

In this response to Sari Hanafi’s article on societal polarisation and academic freedom’, I critically examine three key conceptual claims he makes. The first relates to the claim that globally, we are witnessing societal polarisation. Secondly, this polarisation arises as a consequence of the political Left/Right binary, and that thirdly this binary leads to reduced levels of academic freedom. In contrast, I argue that it is not evident that society is more polarised in contemporary times than previously, that the narrative of a political Left/Right binary is overstated and misleading, and thirdly, I question the methodology that claims empirical evidence of declining levels of academic freedom.

Responding to Sari Hanafi's article on academic freedom and freedom of expression in a conjuncture of societal polarization, this paper argues that, while it is pertinent to examine cancellation practices by the conservative camp, as Hanafi suggests, drawing an equivalence between these practices and what is labelled by them ‘wokeism’ is problematic. Such equivalence obscures the socio-historical contexts from which these movements have emerged and conflates the denunciation of what I call ‘stigmatizing discourses’ with an ideological assault on the left and on universities. The framing of the student protests demanding a ceasefire in Gaza as terrorist propaganda and antisemitism was part of this assault. In a second part, the response engages with Hanafi's analysis of key aspects of the societal polarization surrounding the Gaza war.

Societal polarisation is inherent to capitalist democracy, which is grounded on the reproduction of structural inequalities required by the workings of the capitalist system. The scope for the exercise of democratic rights, including the rights of academic freedom and autonomy is restricted and subordinated to capitalist interests, a dynamic exacerbated by the empowered rise of illiberal political projects, in particular those led by far-right actors, and by associated neocolonial processes in the peripheries of global capitalist democracies. The current episode of the long-term ‘war in Gaza’ has exposed these contradictions in the core Western capitalist democracies questioning the strength of their commitment to academic freedom and autonomy and to the defense of the basic principles of democracy. This succinct response to Hanafi’s article includes some examples to illustrate this intrinsic character of societal polarisation in capitalist democracies and reflects on key challenges facing dialogical sociology partnered with dialogical liberalism in the current global context.

This article provides a slightly different take on the issue of polarisation and academic freedom than the one proposed by Sari Hanafi. We contend that students and academics, especially within the humanities and social sciences, tend to exhibit increasing cultural and political homogeneity and growing intolerance towards those who have different views. This leaves the universities culturally and politically isolated at a time when they have come under increasing assault, whether political or economic. It also risks intellectual sclerosis – the replication of set formats. I plead for pluralism. In relation to Hanafi’s arguments, I am not convinced by the explanatory power of ‘symbolic liberalism’ nor of ‘neoliberalism’ whilst some of his accusations towards European intellectuals seem contradictory. Finally, I argue that state interference and cancel culture should not be conflated.

This response to Sari Hanafi's call for dialogical sociology interrogates the affective, relational, and situational constraints that often inhibit the dialogue he advocates. While broadly sympathetic to Hanafi's critique of symbolic liberalism, I argue that his normative model underestimates the emotional and social forces that shape intellectual engagement, particularly in moments of trauma, polarisation, and moral saturation. Drawing on my own concept of situational intellectualism, I identify four key constraints (affective attachments, the social cost of nuance, trauma, and the temporality of critique) which limit the viability of dialogical openness. Rather than positioning these forces as failures of ethical courage or rationality, I propose that they be understood as constitutive features of intellectual labour. Situational intellectualism offers a framework for assessing how, when, and under what conditions dialogue becomes possible, without idealising its absence or instrumentalising its form.

This article responds to seven scholarly commentaries on my original piece, Societal Polarization, Academic Freedom, and the Promise of Dialogical Sociology. I engage with key critiques through four themes: conceptual frameworks, contestation of data, societal intolerance, and Zionism, concluding with a call to confront increasing societal intolerance. I defend the utility of terms like cancel culture and symbolic liberalism, the latter describing actors who espouse liberal values while practicing political illiberalism. I clarify that my critique does not equate the Left and Right, but interrogates how self-identified liberals may also restrict academic freedom. In response to concerns about empirical foundations, I reaffirm that academic freedom is facing a modest but meaningful decline, citing expert indices and disinvitation data. I attribute this erosion not only to state policies or populism, but also to bureaucratic and student-led overreach driven by ‘safetyism’ and therapeutic culture. The proliferation of victim-centered identity politics has fragmented dialogue and heightened self-censorship. I discuss the Gaza war and gender-critical feminism as illustrative case studies where both conservatives and symbolic liberals have curtailed academic freedom. I argue that critiques of Israeli state policy – especially amid actions characterized by major organizations as genocidal – should not be conflated with antisemitism. Finally, I call for a renewed commitment to dialogical sociology, emphasizing principled engagement over cancellation. Universities must remain spaces for critical debate and reasoned dissent, especially amid rising societal polarization, authoritarian populism, and performative liberalism that suppresses genuine pluralism under the guise of moral certainty.

Anthropology and ethnography are inseparable in the history of the social sciences, with one claiming the other as its methodological characteristic, which is nonetheless very much in evidence in many other disciplines. This pairing directs anthropology towards the study of cultures, groups, interactions, situations and events. With such primacy given to social relations, the difference between sociology and anthropology is greatly blurred. What would anthropology be if it were no longer social and cultural? It could discard its ‘double’ and look for other methods, to change its subject matter, and to take an interest in the singularity of each being. This is the proposal of this article. If this happened, then anthropology would be radically different from sociology.

This engagement piece continues the dialogue initiated by Anders Blok and Casper Bruun Jensen, re-examining Latour's work in light of the challenges and possibilities this exchange brings to the fore. I begin by asking why conversations with Latour's followers often feel laborious, addressing this through a close reading of Blok and Jensen's interpretations and emphases within Latour's oeuvre, set against the broader backdrop of Latour-inspired debates in sociology and Science and Technology Studies (STS). Along the way, I weave in insights from the commentaries in the dialogue that resonate with my own experiences and observations. In closing, I take up Richie Nimmo's provocation – what does ANT struggle to do, or fail to do altogether, that other traditions may address more effectively? – and consider how ANT might be more productively mobilised in substantive dialogue with these complementary approaches.