1.2 The History of Sociology
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this section, you’ll be able to
- Explain why sociology emerged when it did.
- Describe the central ideas of the founders of sociology.
- Describe the ways that sociological theories are used to explain social institutions.
- Differentiate between functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.
Introduction
Until recently, we have very few texts that are non-religious in nature that theorize about social life. From 4th century through the 19th century, the Catholic Church was the seat of power from today’s Turkey in the east to western and northern Europe, including the British Isles. Monks who were charged with rewriting holy texts by hand and the aristocracy were literate. Moreover, the Church consolidated power. In the year 800, Pope Leo III named Charlemagne, the king of Francia (today’s France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany) emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, giving one individual significant control over most of Europe. Doing so gave the Catholic Church the power to maintain its own traditions and to safeguard them from the influence of people practicing other religions. If any social patterns challenged any belief of the Church, those practitioners were often massacred, burned at the stake, or labeled heretics. As a result, the records that we have are extremely subjective and do not offer an unbiased view of social practice.
In the 18th century, Enlightenment philosophers developed general principles that could be used to explain social life. Thinkers such as John Locke, François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Hobbes responded to what they saw as social ills by writing on topics that they hoped would lead to social reform. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) wrote about women’s conditions in society. Like Harriet Martineau and Jane Addams, her works were long ignored by the male academic structure, but since the 1970s, Wollstonecraft has been widely considered the first feminist thinker of consequence. Ideas about economic systems, the family, health and hygiene, national offense and defense, were among the many concerns of social life.
The early 19th century saw great changes with the Industrial Revolution, increased mobility, and new kinds of employment. It was also a period of increased trade, travel, and globalization that exposed many people — for the first time—to societies and cultures other than their own. Millions of people moved into cities and many people turned away from their traditional religious beliefs. Ideas spread rapidly, groups were created, political decisions became public decisions. Among a new generation of philosophers, there were some who believed they could make sense of it all.
Creating a Discipline: European Theorists
Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857)
The term sociology was first coined in 1780 by the French essayist Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (1748–1836) in an unpublished manuscript (Fauré et al. 1999). In 1838, the term was reintroduced by Auguste Comte (1798–1857). Comte originally studied to be an engineer, but later became a pupil of social philosopher Claude Henri de Rouvroy Comte de Saint-Simon (1760–1825). They both thought that social scientists could study society using the same scientific methods utilized in natural sciences. Comte also believed in the potential of social scientists to work toward the betterment of society. He held that once scholars identified the laws that governed society, sociologists could address problems such as poor education and poverty (Abercrombie et al. 2000).
Comte named the scientific study of social patterns positivism. He described his philosophy in a series of books called The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830–1842) and A General View of Positivism (1848). He believed that using scientific methods to reveal the laws by which societies and individuals interact would usher in a new “positivist” age of history. In principle, positivism, or what Comte called “social physics,” proposed that the study of society could be conducted in the same way that the natural sciences approach the natural world. While the field and its terminology have grown, sociologists still believe in the positive impact of their work.
Harriet Martineau (1802 – 1876)
Harriet Martineau introduced sociology to English speaking scholars through her translation of Comte’s writing from French to English. She was an early analyst of social practices, including economics, social class, religion, suicide, government, and women’s rights. Her career began with Illustrations of Political Economy, a work educating ordinary people about the principles of economics (Johnson, 2003). She later developed the first systematic methodological international comparisons of social institutions in two of her most famous sociological works: Society in America (1837) and Retrospect of Western Travel (1838).
Martineau found the workings of capitalism at odds with the professed moral principles of people in the United States. She pointed out the faults with the free enterprise system in which workers were exploited and impoverished while business owners became wealthy. She further noted that the belief that all are created equal was inconsistent with the lack of women’s rights. Much like Mary Wollstonecraft, Martineau was often discounted in her own time because academic sociology was a male-dominated profession.
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher and economist. In 1848, he and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) co-authored the Communist Manifesto. This book is one of the most influential political manuscripts in history. It also presents in a highly condensed form Marx’s theory of society, which differed from what Comte proposed. Whereas Comte viewed the goal of sociology as recreating a unified, post-feudal spiritual order that would help to institutionalize a new era of political and social stability, Marx developed a critical analysis of capitalism that saw the material or economic basis of inequality and power relations as the cause of social instability and conflict. The focus of sociology, or what Marx called historical materialism (the “materialist conception of history”), should be the “ruthless critique of everything existing,” as he said in a letter to his friend Arnold Ruge (1802-1880). In this way the goal of sociology would not simply be to scientifically analyze or objectively describe society, but to use a rigorous scientific analysis as a basis to change it. This framework became the foundation of contemporary critical sociology.
Although Marx did not call his analysis “sociology,” his sociological innovation was to provide a social analysis of the economic system. Adam Smith (1723–1790) and the political economists of the 19th century tried to explain the economic laws of supply and demand solely as a market mechanism, similar to the abstract discussions of stock market indices and investment returns in the business pages of newspapers today. Marx’s analysis showed the social relationships that had created the market system, and the social repercussions of their operation. As such, his analysis of modern society was not static or simply descriptive. He was able to put his finger on the underlying dynamism and continuous change that characterized capitalist society.
Marx was also able to create an effective basis for critical sociology in that what he aimed for in his analysis was, as he put it in another letter to Arnold Ruge, “the self-clarification of the struggles and wishes of the age.” While he took a clear and principled value position in his critique, he did not do so dogmatically, based on an arbitrary moral position of what he personally thought was good and bad. He felt, rather, that a critical social theory must engage in clarifying and supporting the issues of social justice that were inherent within the existing struggles and wishes of the age. In his own work, he endeavoured to show how the variety of specific work actions, strikes, and revolts by workers in different occupations — for better pay, safer working conditions, shorter hours, the right to unionize, etc. — contained the seeds for a vision of universal equality, collective justice, and ultimately the ideal of a classless society.
Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)
In 1873, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer published The Study of Sociology, the first book with the term “sociology” in the title. Spencer rejected much of Comte’s philosophy as well as Marx’s theory of class struggle and his support of communism. Instead, he favored a form of government that allowed market forces to control capitalism. His work influenced many early sociologists including Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). Spencer, using Charles Darwin’s work as a comparison said, “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection,’ or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” (Spencer, 1864). The statement is often misinterpreted and adopted by those who believe in the superiority of one race over another.
Georg Simmel (1858–1918)
Georg Simmel was a German art critic who wrote widely on social and political issues as well. Simmel took an anti-positivism stance and addressed topics such as social conflict, the function of money, individual identity in city life, and the European fear of outsiders (Stapley 2010). Much of his work focused on micro-level theories and analyzed the dynamics of two-person and three-person groups. His work also emphasized individual culture as the creative capacities of individuals (Ritzer & Goodman 2004).
Émile Durkheim (1858–1917)
Émile Durkheim helped establish sociology as a formal academic discipline by establishing the first European department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux in 1895 and by publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method in 1895. In Division of Labour in Society (1893), Durkheim further laid out his theory on how societies transformed from a primitive state into a capitalist, industrial society. According to Durkheim, people rise to their proper levels in society based on merit.
Durkheim believed that sociologists could study objective social facts (Poggi, 2000). He also believed that through such studies it would be possible to determine if a society was “healthy” or “pathological.” Healthy societies were stable while pathological societies experienced a breakdown in social norms.
In 1897, Durkheim attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of his rules of social research when he published a work titled Suicide. Durkheim examined suicide statistics in different police districts to research differences between Catholic and Protestant communities. He attributed the differences to socio-religious forces rather than to individual or psychological causes.
MAKING CONNECTIONS—SOCIOLOGY IN THE REAL WORLD: Durkheim and the Sociological Study of Suicide
Durkheim was very influential in defining the subject matter of the new discipline of sociology. For Durkheim, sociology was not about just any phenomena to do with the life of human beings, but only those phenomena which pertained exclusively to a social level of analysis. It was not about the biological or psychological dynamics of human life, for example, but about the external social facts through which the lives of individuals were constrained. Moreover, the dimension of human experience described by social facts had to be explained in its own terms. It could not be explained by biological drives or psychological characteristics of individuals. It was a dimension of reality sui generis (of its own kind, unique in its characteristics). It could not be explained by, or reduced to, its individual components without missing its most important features. As Durkheim put it, “a social fact can only be explained by another social fact” (Durkheim, 1895/1964). These social facts were often hidden causes, not immediately evident to the individuals caught up in them and required sociological investigation. As he said, “If we had really only to open our eyes and take a good look to perceive at once the laws of the social world, sociology would be useless or, at least very simple” (Durkheim, 1897/1997)
This is the framework of Durkheim’s famous study of suicide. In Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897/1997), Durkheim attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of his rules of social research by examining suicide statistics in different police districts. Suicide is perhaps the most personal and most individual of all acts. Its motives would seem to be absolutely unique to the individual and to individual psychopathology. However, what Durkheim observed was that statistical rates of suicide remained fairly constant, year-by-year and region-by-region. The rates of suicide constituted a social fact independent of the unique circumstances of each case. Moreover, there was no correlation between rates of suicide and rates of psychopathology. Suicide rates did vary, however, according to the social context of the suicides. For example, suicide rates varied according to the religious affiliation of suicides. Protestants had higher rates of suicide than Catholics, even though both religions equally condemn suicide. In some jurisdictions Protestants killed themselves 300% more often than Catholics. Durkheim argued that the key factor that explained the difference in suicide rates (i.e., the statistical rates, not the purely individual motives for the suicides) were the different degrees of social integration of the different religious communities — the number and strength of social ties connecting individuals to each other and society — measured by the degree of authority religious beliefs hold over individuals, and the amount of collective ritual observance and mutual involvement individuals engage in religious practice. A social fact — suicide rates — was explained by another social fact — degree of social integration.
The key social function of religion was to integrate individuals by linking them to a common external doctrine and to a greater spiritual reality outside of themselves. Religion created moral communities. In this regard, he observed that the degree of authority that religious beliefs and rituals held over Catholics was much stronger than for Protestants, who from the time of Luther had been taught to take a critical attitude toward formal doctrine. Protestants were more free to interpret religious belief and in a sense were more individually responsible for supervising and maintaining their own religious practice. Moreover, in Catholicism the ritual practice of the sacraments, such as confession and taking communion, remained intact, whereas in Protestantism ritual was reduced to a minimum. Participation in the choreographed rituals of religious life created a highly visible, public focus for religious observance, forging a link between private thought and public belief. Because Protestants had to be more individualistic and self-reliant in their religious practice, they were not subject to the strict discipline and external constraints of Catholics. They were less integrated into their communities and more thrown back on their own resources. They were more prone to what Durkheim termed egoistic suicide: suicide which results from the individual ego having to depend on itself for self-regulation (and failing) in the absence of strong social bonds tying it to a community.
Durkheim’s study was unique and insightful because he did not try to explain suicide rates in terms of individual psychopathology, mental states or intentions. Instead, he regarded the regularity of the suicide rates as a social fact, implying “the existence of collective tendencies exterior to the individual” (Durkheim, 1897/1997), and explained their variation with respect to another social fact: degree of social integration or the strength and number of social bonds tying individuals to society. A group is more socially integrated, “the more active and constant is the intercourse among its members.” Therefore, he proposed a social law, “Suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups of which the individual forms a part” (Durkheim, 1897/1997).
Contemporary research into suicide in Canada shows that suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people aged 15 to 34 (behind death by accident) (Navaneelan, 2012). The greatest increase in suicide since the 1960s has been in the age 15-19 age group, increasing by 4.5 times for males and by 3 times for females. In 2009, 23% of deaths among adolescents aged 15-19 were caused by suicide, up from 9% in 1974, (although this difference in percentage is because the rate of suicide remained fairly constant between 1974 and 2009, while death due to accidental causes has declined markedly). On the other hand, married people are the least likely group to commit suicide. Single, never-married people are 3.3 times more likely to commit suicide than married people, followed by widowed and divorced individuals respectively. How do sociologists explain this?
It is clear that adolescence and early adulthood is a period in which social ties to family and society are strained. It is often a confusing period in which teenagers break away from their childhood roles in the family group and establish their independence. Youth unemployment is higher than for other age groups and, since the 1960s, there has been a large increase in divorces and single parent families. These factors tend to decrease the quantity and the intensity of ties to society. Married people, on the other hand, have both strong affective affinities with their marriage partners and strong social expectations placed on them, especially if they have families: their roles are clear and the norms which guide them are well-defined. According to Durkheim’s proposition, suicide rates vary inversely with the degree of integration of social groups. Adolescents are less integrated into society, which puts them at a higher risk for suicide than married people who are more integrated. It is interesting that the highest rates of suicide in Canada are for adults in midlife, aged 40-59. Midlife is also a time noted for crises of identity, but perhaps more significantly, as Navaneelan (2012) argues, suicide in this age group results from the change in marital status as people try to cope with the transition from married to divorced and widowed.
Max Weber (1864–1920)
Prominent sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) established a sociology department in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in 1919. He wrote on many topics related to sociology including political change in Russia, the condition of German farm workers, and the history of world religions. He was also a prominent public figure, playing an important role in the German peace delegation in Versailles and in drafting the ill-fated German (Weimar) constitution following the defeat of Germany in World War I. His central concept however was his analysis of rationalization, which referred to the general tendency for modern society for all institutions and most areas of life to be transformed by the application of technical rationality. He argued that the global power and domination of Western societies had its source in the application of methodical, calculative reason and efficiency to the solution of problems and the organization of life. Two chief consequences of rationalization for the social life of modern societies were the disenchantment of the world and the Protestant work ethic.
Weber also made a major contribution to the methodology of sociological research. Along with the philosophers Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) and Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936), Weber believed that it was difficult if not impossible to apply natural science methods to accurately predict the behaviour of groups as positivist sociology hoped to do. They argued that the influence of culture on human behaviour had to be taken into account. What was distinct about human behaviour was that it is essentially meaningful. Human behaviour could not be understood independently of the meanings that individuals attributed to it. A Martian’s analysis of the activities in a skateboard park would be hopelessly confused unless it understood that the skateboarders were motivated by the excitement of taking risks and the pleasure in developing skills. This insight into the meaningful nature of human behaviour even applied to the sociologists themselves, who, they believed, should be aware of how their own cultural biases as they could influence their research. To deal with this problem, Weber and Dilthey introduced the concept of Verstehen, a German word that means to understand something from a subject’s point of view. In seeking Verstehen, outside observers of a social world — an entire culture or a small setting — attempt to understand it empathetically from an insider’s point of view.
In his essay “The Methodological Foundations of Sociology,” Weber described sociology as “a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects” (Weber, 1997/1922). In this way he delimited the field that sociology studies in a manner almost opposite to that of Émile Durkheim. Rather than defining sociology as the study of the unique dimension of external social facts, sociology was concerned with social action: actions to which individuals attach subjective meanings. “Action is social in so far as, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual (or individuals), it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course” (Weber, 19971922). The actions of the young skateboarders can be explained because they hold the experienced boarders in esteem and attempt to emulate their skills, even if it means scraping their bodies on hard concrete from time to time. Weber and other like-minded sociologists founded interpretive sociology whereby social researchers strive to find systematic means to interpret and describe the subjective meanings behind social processes, cultural norms, and societal values. This approach led to research methods like ethnography, participant observation, and phenomenological analysis. Their aim was not to generalize or predict (as in positivistic social science), but to systematically gain an in-depth understanding of social worlds. The natural sciences may be precise, but from Weber’s point of view their methods confine them to study only the external characteristics of things.
SOCIAL POLICY AND DEBATE: Should Canada Have a Guaranteed Livable Income?
On 16th of December in 2021, Senator Kim Pate and Member of Parliament Leah Gazan introduced Bills S-233 and C-223, which if passed, would mark the first national framework for an unconditional Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI) for all individuals over 17 in Canada (UBI Works, 2024). GLI, also known as a basic income, is a social security measure that ensures every individual or household receives a minimum amount of funds regardless of other sources of income. The goal of GLI is to provide financial security and minimize poverty by guaranteeing that everyone has enough income to meet their basic needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing (Steven, 2023).
Opponents of the GLI argue that it could lead to significant financial challenges, potentially burdening the Canadian government with unsustainable costs which can result in increased taxes. This may foster dependency on government aid rather than promoting self-sufficiency (Young & Mulvale, 2009). Critics also assert that GLI could reduce workforce participation by disincentivizing individuals to seek employment, thereby hindering market efficiency and economic growth (Pate, 2020). Concerns about administrative complexity, including eligibility determination and fraud prevention, are also raised by opponents. Additionally, fairness is another factor critics urge us to consider, whether providing universal benefits to all citizens, regardless of income level, is equitable and justifiable (Lévesque, 2024).
Proponents of GLI argue that it provides an essential safety net by ensuring all individuals have a basic level of economic security, reducing existing inequality (Steven, 2023). They further state that GLI can simplify and streamline welfare systems, enabling government funds to be allocated more effectively. Moreover, proponents believe that it can empower individuals by giving them the financial ability to pursue education, training, and entrepreneurship without the fear of falling into poverty. Furthermore, they argue that GLI promotes social justice by ensuring everyone has access to essentials like food, housing, and healthcare, regardless of their employment status (Young & Mulvale, 2009).
Sociologists may consider the guaranteed wage issue from differing perspectives as well. How much of an impact would a GLI have for a single mother? Some might study the economic effects, such as her ability to pay bills and keep food on the table. Others might look at how reduced economic stress could improve family relationships. Some sociologists might research the impact on the status of small business owners. These could all be examples of public sociology, a branch of sociology that strives to bring sociological dialogue to public forums. The goals of public sociology are to increase understanding of the social factors that underlie social problems and assist in finding solutions. According to Michael Burawoy (2005), the challenge of public sociology is to engage multiple publics in multiple ways.
The Emergence of Sociology as a Discipline in Canada
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, sociology as a distinct academic discipline was established across many Canadian educational institutions as a response to the nation’s unique social, economic, and cultural challenges at that time. Shaped by Canada’s colonial history, the legacy of European intellectual traditions, and complex political issues, sociology in Canada developed its own trajectory, reflecting the local and national social realities while incorporating global phenomena (Helmes-Hayes, 2016). The key stages in the emergence and institutionalization of sociology as a discipline are discussed below, highlighting the contributions of Canadian foundational thinkers and the evolution of sociological work across Canada.
Early Foundations of Sociology in Canadian Institutions
The initial establishment of sociology as a discipline in the 19th century was influenced by European ideologies and framed by Christian theology. Early Canadian scholars, often clergy and public advocates in churches and religious groups, addressed several issues from morality to governance. These early discussions set the groundwork for sociological inquiry, concentrating on topics such as poverty, stratification, and Indigenous relations (Helmes-Hayes, 2016). Additionally, Canada’s nation-building efforts, characterized by regional diversity, bilingualism, and multiculturalism also played a key role as these distinguishing features of Canada provided a backdrop for the discipline to construct its individualistic identity that is separate from its European counterparts (Brym, 2004).
The first sociology courses in Canada were introduced primarily in religious institutions, indicating the influence of moral philosophy and Christian social thought. Between the period of 1889 and 1921, precisely 28 men, many of whom were clerics, taught sociology in Canadian Protestant theological colleges and denominational schools. By the year of 1921, there were 11 Canadian institutions that offered sociology courses. During this time, as religion played an important role in society, many early educators of sociology were influenced by religious values. From 1922 onwards, the objective of sociological investigation gradually moved onto researching societal matters as a tool to address social and economic problems, focusing on improving society through potential reforms in government policies and practices (Helmes-Hayes, 2016). Some of the dominating and prevailing themes in early Canadian sociological teaching included the tensions between Indigenous and settler communities, the social integration of immigrants, and the regional disparities resulting from uneven economic development (Brym, 2004; Hiller & Di Luzio, 2001). In particular, McGill University situated in Montreal, Quebec is often recognized as the pioneer institution of sociology due to its large-scale, systematic empirical research on sociological issues by Carl A. Dawson and Everett C. Hughes. While Dawson’s work on the city, immigration, and Prairie settlement is acknowledged as the revolutionary research on urban sociology, Hughes’ work on industrialization and ethnic relations are frequently praised and citied by sociological scholars worldwide (Helmes-Hayes, 2016).
Applying the Discipline: Canadian Theorists and Practitioners
Harold Innis (1894–1952)
Harold Innis, played a critical role in shaping Canadian sociology through his analysis of economic and structural systems. His staples thesis is one of the most influential frameworks for understanding Canada’s economic history and development through the export of primary resources, or “staples” (Hayter & Barnes, 1990). In works such as The Fur Trade in Canada and Empire and Communications, Innis explored how geography, technology, and communication influenced societal organization. His interdisciplinary approach inspired Canadian sociologists to consider the broader structural forces that shape societal evolution, making his work an essential foundation for other scholars to explore how resource dependency impacts Canada’s social expansion and reproduces existing regional inequalities (Brady, 1953).
Samuel Delbert Clark (1910–2003)
Samuel D. Clark is considered one of the pioneers of Canadian sociology. In 1938, he began teaching at the University of Toronto for several decades and founded the sociology department where he served as the first chair from 1963 to 1969. According to the University of Toronto’s archives, “through his efforts, sociology gained respect from Canadian scholars who were initially skeptical of the discipline” (University of Toronto, 2022, p. 1), and thus, in 1999, the department introduced the endowed “S.D. Clark Chair” to honour him. Clark primarily focused on the historical and social changes within rural communities. His work, The Developing Canadian Community (1962), documented the transition of Canada from a collection of isolated rural communities to an interconnected, industrialized society. By emphasizing the role of religion, migration, and economic growth on social structures over time, Clark introduced a historically grounded approach to Canadian sociology and established a model for analyzing the broader transformations of Canadian society (Morton, 1963).
John Porter (1921–1979)
John Porter made a profound impact on Canadian sociology with his influential book, The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada (1965). Porter challenged the perception of Canada as an egalitarian society, uncovering substantial inequalities in power and opportunity rooted in class and ethnicity (Dofny, 1967). He demonstrated how Anglo-Saxon elites dominated positions of power, marginalizing ethnic groups and creating a highly stratified society. In the article titled ‘John Porter: Canada’s most famous sociologist,’ Helmes-Hayes (2002) stated how his book became “the most important and famous book in the history of Canadian sociology” (p.79) as his analysis reshaped discussions about multiculturalism, immigration, and inequality in Canada, making The Vertical Mosaic a groundbreaking piece of work in Canadian sociology (Longstaff, 1967).
Jean-Charles Falardeau (1914–1989)
Jean-Charles Falardeau was a central figure in the development of Francophone sociology in Canada, particularly through his studies of Quebec society (Bélanger, 1970). His work focused on the unique cultural and social dynamics of Quebec, especially during the transformative Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Falardeau’s research emphasized modernization, secularization, and the transformative role of education in social change (Falardeau, 1961). By exploring Quebec’s distinct identity through his research, Falardeau contributed to the broader understanding of its place within Canada. As a professor and mentor, he helped to institutionalize sociology as an academic discipline in French-speaking areas of Canada, fostering a regional approach that valued linguistic and cultural diversity (Shouldice, 1979).
Dorothy Smith (1926–2022)
Dorothy Smith is a revolutionary Canadian sociologist who introduced feminist perspectives and developed institutional ethnography, a method that explores how everyday experiences are shaped by larger social and institutional structures. Her pivotal work, The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology (1987), critiqued traditional sociologists for their nature of “women’s exclusion from knowledge production” (DeVault, 2023, p. 314), while advocating for a more inclusive and grounded approach to the discipline. Smith’s work expanded Canadian sociology by addressing issues of gender, power, and inequality. Through her teaching and publications, she influenced generations of sociologists, solidifying her legacy as one of Canada’s leading sociological scholars (Sweet, 2023).
Media Attributions
- Pre-Sociologists © Manikantesh Doradla adapted by Daniel Opperwall is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike) license
- European Theorists is licensed under a Public Domain license
- Everett C. Hughes © Stephen Lewellyn is licensed under a All Rights Reserved license
- Harold Innis © William James Jr is licensed under a Public Domain license
- Dorothy Smith © Schmendrick2112 is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
