Abstract
Abstrakt The centrality of power to social relationship and, thus as an explanatory category, to sociological theory, is one of the dominant themes of contemporary sociology. This sensibility is of relatively recent origin, deriving from criticisms, in the 1960s and since, of what was held to be the "orthodox consensus" of professional sociology, to which was counterposed a series "of radical alternatives".
Several decades on, and the mood of hope and optimism among radical theorists has faded. This had a lot to do with changed social and political circumstances, but I shall suggest it is also to do with the character of the radical project itself.
By seeking to make power all-pervasive, the specific, but limited, utility of the category has been lsot such that power becomes continuous with the normal operation of any system of social relationships. Radical theorists try to avoid the potentially nihilistic and fatalistic consequences of the position by affirming "resistance" as positive but, at the same time, any positive judgement about the aoutcome of resistance is witheld precisely because the normal operation of any system - including any "new sytem - is understood to entail power.
In this way the issue of power is effectively removed from judgements about different social arrangements. Since differentiation among social arrangements must be central to any wider public relevance that sociological argument might have, the consequence is the alientaion of sociological argument from public debate, which is the opposite of what "radical" teorists had sought to achieve.
On a more positive fiate, I shall conclude by arguing that a "non-radica" sociology can serve critical and public purposes more effectively.