The death of sociologist Jason Arday, subjected to a trial by media in which the supposedly “serious” newspapers also actively participated, marks the end of a sociology subordinated to the media. Sociologists and sociological organizations that allow themselves to be influenced by the media cease to be a science that improves society; they become puppets of misinformation that makes society worse.
Regardless of whatever actions this sociologist may had taken—actions that had not yet been judged by those legally competent to do so—the media trial to which he was subjected constitutes a cruel assault on fundamental rights, the separation of powers, democracy, and sociology itself. Although the racial dimension has played a role that must be analyzed and condemned, claiming that such media trials occur only because of race also amounts to the invisibilization of other media trials, for instance, the sexist neglect of the media trials experienced by feminists who genuinely commit themselves and take risks in supporting all victims of gender-based violence and child abuse.
Newspapers, radios and televisions, including the serious ones, are facing a growing crisis as they have lost their monopoly over information to an increasingly diverse range of sources with growing social impact. Faced with this crisis of influence and resources, the worst journalists pursue a path that further undermines the media in the long term while offering short-term returns. That path consists of seeking rapid audience gains through scandal, either by exaggerating reality or inventing it. A journalist from a major media outlet once rejected information provided by victims, saying that it disrupted her narrative and that their victimization was not serious enough; for it to be broadcast on television, she said, she needed deaths.
Are there sociologists and sociological organizations foolish enough to subordinate themselves to journalism? Yes, there are, and some even treat that journalism as their main source of information. Recently, a journalist who cheers on a prominent businessman convicted of producing child pornography, together with colleagues who reproduced her “information,” became the main reference source for decisions taken against those who supported victims of child abuse. Does such sociology have any chance of surviving along such path? Clearly, not in the medium term.
The primary source of a sociology with a future lies in its own analyses of society and in the sciences, citizens, and institutions that transform it. Such sociology has social impact, improves society, and contributes to improving other sciences. It follows the principles of human rights, anti-racism, and anti-sexism, making an indispensable contribution to humanity.
This is the sociology that has inspired generations of people to devote themselves to the discipline—even if some have gradually lost that inspiration after seeing its original purpose betrayed by individual, corporate, or organizational interests. Despite it all, no one will be able to stop this sociology from flourishing, or to halt the development of its rigorous theories and transformative practices.
Harvard PhD, Full Professor of Sociology at the University of Barcelona, President of the European Sociological Association 2019-2021