ABSTRACT
The theory of reflexive modernity and criticisms of it raise important questions about the kind of sociology we want to participate in and (re)construct. Reconstructivist theories of modernity are appealing for a number of reasons, not least because of the project for sociological renewal they imply. However, we should be cautious about the kind of renewal they envision. We should also be cautious about the argument that deconstructive approaches to modernity and modernist sociology are spent forces, or that they have gone too far. The deconstructive movements in theory and sociology considered in this book offer diverse approaches to conceptualizing the modern and the postmodern. They also offer diverse ways of envisioning the sociological project. Ironically, it is the deconstructive sub-movement that is least regarded in theoretical responses to the deconstructive turn that provides one of the most convincing arguments against the kind of reconstructed sociology that theories of reflexive modernity promote. This is the movement associated with interrogating sociological practice and constructing radically reflexive sociology. This approach advocates recognizing how difference and power shape the sociological narratives that we tell. It is, in this respect, distinct from the kind of sociology that reconstructivist theories propose. This points to a crucial difference that is focused on in this concluding chapter: between reflexive sociology and the sociology of reflexivity. Whereas the former advocates the critical acknowledgement of difference and power in constructing the sociological narrative, the latter constructs a powerful narrative that puts aside difference for the sake of narrative coherence. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive approaches. It is fair to say, however, that sociology of reflexivity as articulated in the reconstructive theory of reflexive modernity is far
removed for the ideals of reflexive sociology. Before discussing this, however, it is necessary to recap the central arguments of the preceding chapters.
