Burawoy and Public Sociology at Central European University http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yiIJVgpc0S0 In what follows, Michael D. Kennedy summarizes. Following introductions, Michael Burawoy begins with discussing the definition, and especially the dilemmas, of public sociology. He uses his then ongoing course, Public Sociology Live http://www.isa-sociology.org/public-sociology-live/, and http://isapublicsociology.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/week-1-michael-burawoy/ to illustrate some of its potentials. In classes across the world – in Teheran, Barcelona, Johannesburg, Kyiv, Sao Paulo, Oslo, Berkeley – sociologists watch the course and then summarize each class’s discussion on the group facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/259654060772916/ which in turn moves discussion across them. Around 21:50, Burawoy turns to dilemmas using this course, and drawing on some of that course’s guest speakers, for his illustrations. Around 33 minutes, the seminar opens up for discussion, where publics and their scholars from Europe and Eurasia, organized by the Academic Fellowship Program of the Open Society Foundations, move the discussion around variations in sociology, the discipline’s relationship to anthropology, and its relationship to activism as such. In more detail: Moved by Castells’ work on Communication Power, Burawoy notes the relative lack of resources and popularity anthropology and sociology suffer in the broader public discourse. But organic public sociology offers an alternative, with a more privatized and less visible kind of public engagement, one less dependent on an unequal marketplace of ideas. The work of Ramon Flecha and Marta Soler in Spain, and their “critical communicative methodology” illustrates just that alternative in its variety of participatory action research. And while reciprocal research is always a problem given how power permeates all dialogue, this dilemma becomes even more deadly when publics are being killed, and violent organizations are in contest in the public one engages. Nandini Sundar’s work in India exemplifies, where she faces risk from both Maoist groups and state affiliated militias at war with each other. One might find a similar dilemma is in Colombia, as Cesar Rodriquez-Garavito suggests, with a paramilitary and so called left wing guerillas shaping what can be publically addressed. His public sociology also operates in an international legal field. In post-apartheid South Africa, the policy sociologist faces dilemmas, distinguishing an advocacy based and policy sponsored policy science, as Karl von Holdt illustrates with his work. Waldon Ballo challenges public sociology head on, from an activist standpoint even while his professional sociology credentials are impeccable. But his critical/activist sociology, in alliance with social movements, works in the Philippines to engage, in quite innovative ways, world knowledge institutions that define its problems. Discussion, begun around 33’ First, what does public sociology look like in a country like Russia, where sociology was repressed in the earlier regime and dominated by a vision of policy sociology? One part of public sociology must mount a defense of an autonomous professional sociology. But it also must help to constitute publics, to make private concerns into public issues. One of the best examples of that kind of constitution took place in the USA when in the 1970s and 1980s feminist sociology and the women’s movement aligned to help to constitute such a public. But it does matter what kind of professional sociology is made. There is a risk that professionalism could be cut off from the other kinds of sociology, from critical, policy, and public sociology, a kind of “hyperprofessionalism” (each of these sociologies have their own pathologies). Throughout discussion, the value of the sociology/anthropology dialogue recurs, especially as ethnography and narrative mobilize inquiry and discussion, and the place of applied anthropology figures. Particularly challenging, however, is the relationship between public sociology and activism. Burawoy worries when the sociology in public sociology gets lost. Activism as such needs to be distinguished from public sociology. Sociology helps us to appreciate how people’s lived experiences are shaped by broader social structures and the limits of the possibilities of change. That sociological disposition can contradict the visions of people working for change. Not all places are ideal for public sociology’s development. Indeed, one might argue that professional sociology must be constituted first. But what kind of professional sociology is an important debate. Indeed, some argue that some kinds of professional sociology can be developed alongside activism. The case of Спільне or Commons, a Ukrainian journal, is discussed. http://commons.com.ua/ One might also view the University of Prishtina’s journal Njohja in these terms too http://www.academia.edu/3630827/_2013_Articulations_of_Transformation_Subjectivities_and_Structures_in_Crisis_ One could be tempted to see sociology as a cure for a broader educational crisis, where universities are training brilliant individuals in specialized ways that are completely ignorant in broader public terms. Such triumph of instrumental reason does not come only from liberalism, but from the structural system organizing universities through state and ranking regulation and commercialization. The relationship among national, local and global publics in sociology’s development is a leitmotif throughout, as well as the challenge of various media in addressing those publics. The discussion concludes around the question of which publics public sociology engages, and how the value of dialogue might guide normative approaches to distinguishing publics. And how a global public sociology might developed further to address it.