In an overview of Martin Luther King Jr.’s final months, the Chicago Tribune quotes its own take on urban riots:
King’s opponents saw his proposed march as an invitation to rioting. In the 1960s, one inner city after another had exploded in deadly and destructive riots. King explained the violence with a metaphor: “A riot is the language of the unheard.”
The Tribune rejected that argument in a Jan. 21, 1968, editorial: “Every time there is a riot in the streets you can count on a flock of sociologists rushing forward to excuse the rioters.” King’s “nonviolence,” the Tribune added, “is designed to goad others into violence.”
Simultaneously, King was under attack by a younger generation of black militants who rejected his pacifist philosophy as weak. Their conclusion was echoed by Adam Clayton Powell Jr. “I don’t call for violence or riots, but the day of Martin Luther King has come to an end,” said Powell, a longtime U.S. congressman from New York.
Lest the Tribune let this idea of sociologists excusing riots be swept into the dustbin of history, this idea exists in recent years as well. In 2013, the conservative Canadian Prime Minister said we should not “commit sociology” when addressing terrorism. Conservative columnist George Will used a similar phrase in 2012 when discussing the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Of course, explaining social phenomena is not the same as excusing or condoning it.
Now that I have seen this sort of explanation multiple times, it is clearly less about sociology and how social science works and more about political ideology. Sociologists, by a wide majority, are liberals. Those who tend to disparage sociology in public phrases like these are conservatives. The implication is that sociologists and liberals are willing to allow violence and disorder if it serves a particular political end. And, this may have just enough of a grain of truth to be a repeatable claim.
3 thoughts on “The Chicago Tribune in 1968 and conservatives today: sociologists excuse rioters”
It has far more than a mere grain of truth. Sociologists are predominantly liberal – non-liberals can rarely actually get the degrees or work in the field – and they simply use to terms of their field to convey the normal agendas, normally anti-normal, and non-White apologetics.
Note, however, they quickly reverse their tune when it is the normal, the majority, or simply Whites (in non-male-female conflict) who have exhibited some level of violence. Then, these sociologists are quite quick to say that some leader or demagogue, e.g., President Trump, has incited the situation.
Pingback: Speculating on why sociology is less relevant to the media and public than economics | Legally Sociable
Pingback: Confronting and remembering Chicago’s 1919 race riots | Legally Sociable