At present, sociotherapy is practiced on a very small scale, scattered across a few countries worldwide. Clinical sociology is a small field that, together with sociological or “critical” social work, exhibits certain sociotherapeutic traits. Practiced sociology, however, remains very rare. The applied sociology that does exist is often focused on policy. Why is there such low interest among sociologists in being practically oriented beyond policy? Sociotherapy is a concept that few sociologists have even heard of, and for which there is no research program. This is symptomatic of sociology’s anti, interventionism outside of policy (Wan & Wan, 2020), even as several classics in sociology, such as Addams and Dubois, and later important sociologists like Zetterberg have argued for the importance of being an active part of society. Sociology’s role in society has been discussed in terms of what it can contribute and how its research can be made as meaningful as possible (Weber, 1903; Alvesson, Gabriel, & Paulsen, 2017). For example, movement research has had elements of activism, a field also known as action research (Touraine, 1995). Another field of research that is, however, barely alive, with only a few practitioners, is clinical sociology, which includes research on sociotherapy (Freedman, 1989). Two small journals (Clinical Sociology Review and Sociological Practice), which were discontinued in the 1990s, and the few articles that are published indicate that sociotherapy is in a research slump. There are also a few handbooks on clinical sociology. Research on psychotherapy as a phenomenon within sociology is, however, much more active (Illouz 2008, Furedi 2004).
Is it a worthwhile endeavor to establish a research program focused on sociotherapy? It would build upon the work already done by several different sociologists. Compared to psychotherapy as a field encompassing hundreds of therapeutic approaches, this research is likely only a fraction of what it could be in terms of scope. Below are various arguments that could be raised against reviving such a research program:
Critics may argue that therapy itself is a practice that creates negative effects in society, which sociology should not reinforce. Psychotherapy specifically has adverse effects today, but this highlights the dangers of all forms of therapy; sociotherapy will recreate the same problems found with various forms of psychotherapy.
The “therapeutization” of society, in the form of the spread of psychotherapy as an ideology, practice, and discourse, has been argued to lead to atomization (Furedi, 2019; Illouz, 2008), introspective homogenization, and the reinforcement of cultural narcissism (Lasch, 2018), as well as the shifting of responsibility onto the individual, leading to “psychological failures” in which people blame themselves for everything that goes wrong in life (Illouz, 2008, Rose, 2019), an excessive focus on health in the form of “wellness syndrome” (Cederström & Spicer, 2015), the subjectification of the individual as a psychological being through various “psy, technologies” (Rose, 1999, 2019), the suppression of critical thinking and civic engagement, instead, problems are privatized and critical thoughts are neutralized by a hegemonic psychiatric discourse (Cabanas & Illouz, 2019, Cohen, 2016), increased vulnerability and risk aversion (Furedi, 2004, 2017, Illich, 1975), an instrumentalization and demoralization of emotions (Cabanas & Illouz, 2019), a means of domination (Morall, 2008, 2018), and the creation of a hope, for which there is actually no basis, that everything in life can be resolved, a form of “cruel optimism” (Morall, 2018; Berlant, 2011). With sociotherapy, the “therapeutization” of society would gain even more academic support as sociology itself is used for therapeutic purposes (Alvesson, 2019, 40).
This critique of “therapeutization” can, in turn, be criticized for being too sweeping. Broad terms such as “therapeutization” fail to recognize that culture, in the anthropological sense, has “healing” and therapeutic effects because it supports our thinking through symbolic systems (Reiff, 2006, 56). Reiff argues that even social theory has had therapeutic effects (2006, 56). I would argue that the books written by the harshest critics themselves have precisely these therapeutic effects on anxiety and relationship difficulties, since people can manage their lives a little better after reading them, provided they put the insights into practice (Furedi, 2019; Illouz, 2013).
Instead of problems with “therapeutization,” society faces the problem of various forms of mis-therapeutization. The therapeutic is always part of society (Reiff, 2006); how and in what form it should exist is worth investigating.
The argument that it is better to speak of forms of mis, therapeutization is also supported by the fact that it is entirely possible to see that the problems within psychotherapy vary depending on the form of psychotherapy being practiced. The work done in clinical sociology is also distinct from psychotherapy, and it has not been demonstrated that sociotherapy needs to repeat the same mistakes. Illouz has been critical of how psychology, through therapy and the self, help culture, has led to increased suffering; it has not merely created a new form of the subject (Illouz, 2008). A manufactured fragility has emerged through a focus on insight and narcissism, combined with various discourses on responsibility, “trauma, creep,” and heightened expectations of a good life (Ecclestone, 2012; Haslam, 2016). Sociotherapy can learn from all these critical points identified by Illouz and others. Rose argues that psychology has created a psychological subject who views themselves from a psychological perspective and uses “psy, technologies” to cope with life’s difficulties, becoming blind to social influences and thus finding it difficult to solve their problems (Rose, 2019). Sociotherapy aims to foster sociological awareness and place greater emphasis on social factors, which would increase the likelihood that the therapy would have a more positive effect.
Illich argues that experts and professionals create iatrogenesis, second, order, unforeseen negative effects of treatment (Illich, 1977). Alvesson argues that experts take over people’s lives through “teragogy,” in which the therapeutic is embedded in various spheres, and contends that this undermines and colonizes the lifeworld, thereby diminishing people’s ability to think for themselves, a form of “overly helpful helpfulness” (Alvesson, 2019, 40). Sociotherapists would become yet another profession that, with its clinical gaze (Foucault, 1973), attempts to improve life, but instead categorizes, judges, and shapes based on what is in their own interest, and is easily incorporated into the prevailing dominant discourses, which would turn sociotherapy into a tool for that purpose. Jane Addams also argued that the clinical role is not helpful; rather, one should be present as a fellow human being and a fellow citizen (Trost & Levin, 2010). The clinical gaze can be objectifying, distancing, and rooted in inequality (Foucault, 1973). It subjectifies the client more as a patient than as a citizen. All of this is important to take into account, but it is not a necessary outcome. Sociotherapy should include socio, education on precisely these phenomena in order to build agency and support the individual. I therefore believe that sociotherapy has an opportunity to incorporate this critique of therapy and professions in general. One way clinical sociologists have already done this to some extent is by drawing on Carl Rogers’ humanistic view of the therapist’s role, which is that of an equal and a coach (Wan & Wan, 2020). This represents a different power dynamic that is more egalitarian compared to that of the psychoanalyst or psychiatrist.
If psychotherapy, in its desire to help, has instead increased cultural narcissism, introspection and rumination, the shifting of responsibility, over, individualization, and a cruel optimism, there is, conversely, a risk that sociotherapy might overemphasize the social and structures, a criticism already leveled at sociologically based social work (Payne, 2015). In the attempt to foster sociological awareness in the client, there is a risk of overemphasizing the social and underestimating agency (Wrong, 1961), which can lead to pessimism and fatalism in the worst case. There would also be a risk of cruel optimism in that one learns about sociology and, for example, various socio, technologies to improve one’s life. One is filled with hope and optimism, but one does not, or cannot, receive sufficient support because the social context in which the client is embedded cannot be sufficiently influenced by the sociotherapist. Risks of fostering both cruel optimism and cruel pessimism exist, but these can be managed in various ways, with awareness of these risks being the first step.
Ancient practical philosophy is a form of therapy, with the clearest example being Epicurus’s vision of friends serving as therapists for one another, discussing problems, and learning about life (Hadot, 2015). Practical philosophy was like an “art of living” (Hadot, 2015). When sociologists are quick to criticize, for example, CBT, they are simultaneously criticizing a practice that bears great similarities to, and draws inspiration from, certain aspects of Stoicism and, by extension, Cynicism (ancient Cynicism) (Hadot, 2015). Therapy as a practice is very similar to practices found in religion: going to church for confession, using mantras that are internalized through prayer, etc.
The term “therapy” comes from the Greek word therapia, which means service, treatment, care, healing, or supervision. Reiff’s argument that society and culture, including social theory, always have some form of therapeutic effects becomes clearer. We can see how social theory is a service, can be healing, and is, in particular, a form of supervision (where the theory has the potential to increase clarity in our view of society).
Therapy does not necessarily imply that something is “sick”; rather, therapy stems from service, treatment, and supervision. The argument I present here supports the possibility of sociotherapy, an approach that many sociologists dismiss when they speak broadly about the negative consequences of “therapization.” Mis, therapeutization, over, therapeutization, or psychotherapeutization allows us to discuss a more appropriate form of therapy. It can also address Reiff’s claim that social theory has therapeutic goals, namely, to heal a sick society, and should provide various techniques to the subjects who engage with it (Reiff, 2006). Sociologists who critique psychiatry and psychiatrization do not generally critique “iatri”, the Greek term for the art of healing, with the exception of Illich. This opens the door to a practice centered on the concept of “socioatri,” though Nikolas Rose, for example, has argued that it is better to speak of social psychiatry (2019). Socioatri could very well be something that needs to be developed just as much as sociotherapy.
Another argument is that sociotherapy isn’t needed because psychotherapy is so successful. Below, I’ll list various arguments that psychotherapy is sufficient, along with my responses to them.
The shortcomings that exist are not due to psychotherapy itself, but rather to a lack of resources and unqualified practitioners. Research is well, established and grows stronger every year. There are hundreds of different forms of therapy tailored to various patient groups. CBT is the most extensively researched form of therapy and has robust support, especially for mild to moderate symptoms where the social situation is not particularly problematic. At the same time, CBT has limitations in that it does not help everyone; therefore, various forms of therapy are being researched that show even better results, such as well, being therapy and meta, cognitive therapy. Psychotherapies are also supported by the fact that psychotropic medications have a positive effect, although there is debate about how much of the effect of, for example, antidepressants are due to the placebo effect. Furthermore, psychotherapy incorporates social factors in a balanced way. Social factors are also incorporated into all psychological perspectives in various ways: relationships, family, workplace conflicts, social problem, solving, support for better communication, changing perceptions and assumptions about other people that stand in the way of understanding them better, and psychoeducation to better understand others, all of which can be practiced with the psychotherapist. “Social interaction on prescription” is a fairly widespread practice in healthcare; joining a choir, going for a run, or volunteering are examples of different social activities people engage in. Psychology also has a great deal of research on how social factors affect people. Psychotherapy also views social engagement as something positive; within ACT, social engagement is even something that is actively encouraged. The problem isn’t psychotherapy itself, but rather a lack of psychotherapy and psychoeducation in society; if these were more widely available for preventive purposes, mental health issues would decrease. Psychiatry has a dark history, but modern, evidence, based psychiatry, with adequate resources and psychiatric teams, achieves better outcomes. Psychiatry is based on the biopsychosocial model, which provides a holistic framework grounded in influential models, such as those for anxiety disorders, that incorporate social, biological, and psychological aspects. The diagnostic system is not perfect and does not represent definitive truths, but it serves as a useful tool for identifying various forms of ill health, diseases, and disorders.
In short, all these claims about the fundamentally positive contributions of psychotherapy and psychiatry can be questioned (which I do in greater detail in Section 3.10). A summary of this section is that psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychology are in a research crisis, a view shared by several researchers in psychology (Scull, 2022). There are major shortcomings in relying on quasi, experiments, which essentially make double, blind testing impossible, leading to effects often being overestimated (Scull, 2022). Psychiatric diagnoses suffer from a lack of validity in several dimensions (Scull, 2022), and the process by which new diagnoses are established, through committees, lacks scientific rigor. Psychiatry places too much emphasis on biological explanations (Scull, 2022; Rose, 2019). Evidence, based therapy is not as evidence, based as the name suggests.
An argument against sociologists engaging in clinical work emerged in the 1960s from Thomas Berger, who argued that this is the role of social work, not sociologists (Wan & Wan, 2020, 66). This idea has been predominant and is a key factor in why the sociological branch of social work is very small and exists primarily within critical social work (Webb, 2019; Payne, 2015). Sociologists’ lack of interest in social work has led to what has been somewhat broadly termed “sociological blindness” within social work (Wan & Wan, 2020). In social work, psychology has become the primary scientific influence because it has developed concepts and measurement methods to influence behavior, something that sociology has “not even attempted to develop” (Wan & Wan, 2020). The sociology that social workers learn is usually too abstract and focused on the macro level, lacking clear tools for effecting change at the micro level (Wan & Wan, 2020). If one looks at undergraduate programs in social work, there is, for example, only a short course in pure sociology at Stockholm University. Some sociology is certainly covered in two courses on the welfare state. Several textbooks on social work have a psychological emphasis. Others have discussed this as well in the past. Thus, Berger’s argument that social work should handle the practical aspects does not seem to have held up in practice precisely because of sociologists’ distancing themselves from the field.
The discussion about the role of sociologists and where the focus of research should lie has been ongoing throughout the 20th century; for example, Seymour Martin Lipset argued that sociology’s “moral” era was over and that by the 1960s a more scientific paradigm had been established (Burawoy, 2004; Kalleberg, 2005, 2012).
The roles that sociologists assume are, in principle, exclusively those of researchers, teachers, public intellectuals, and policy experts (Kalleberg, 2012). Burawoy divides sociological knowledge into four forms: professional, critical, policy, and public (2004). Burawoy argues that sociology has shifted from seeking to influence and change society to, today, helping to preserve it (Burawoy, 2004). Burawoy argues that “public sociology” is important and that there are different ways to practice public sociology and different segments of the public that can be reached. Burawoy does not mention clinical sociology, but it could be seen as a way to inform and be informed by the various forms of knowledge that Burawoy proposes. Interestingly, Burawoy notes that these different forms of knowledge can be integrated and harmonious, or exclusive and in conflict with one another (2004). Sociotherapy has the potential to become a form of integration of the four forms of knowledge, which could be important and support an open “search” for the good life, as Savage has proposed that sociology should participate in (Savage, 2021, 321). Clinical sociology and sociotherapy would create a new form of professional knowledge that is more applied at the micro level. The therapeutic framing of sociology would offer an alternative way to disseminate sociology to the public. Sociotherapy could also have policy implications, particularly in the areas of “mental health,” healthcare, and social services , as it would bring an alternative perspective into sharper focus. Critical sociology would be necessary within sociotherapy to prevent it from becoming yet another clinical perspective characterized by hubris in its interventionism.
Much of early sociology was strongly driven by reform (Trost & Levin, 2010). Jane Addams is today considered one of the classics of sociology and also of social work research. She and several others worked at the Hull House settlement, where other sociologists such as Kelly, Beckinsridge, Thomas, Mead, Dewey, Cooley, and Mead also were active (Trost & Levin, 2010). Some described this as a “sociological laboratory”, the action research of that era (Trost & Levin, 2010). However, the term “laboratory” is misleading, as the interactions that took place were based on an equal relationship with the people at Hull House, with a focus on helping them help themselves (Trost & Levin, 2010). The focus was on applied sociological research that was very closely tied to action, involving the investigation of workers’ conditions, documenting neighbors’ problems, starting organizations, running campaigns, lobbying, educating poor immigrants, and running after, school clubs for youth centered on sports, literature, and discussions (Trost & Levin, 2010). In times of crisis, the center would take in, for example, children who had been cast out by their parents (Trost & Levin, 2010). They participated in strikes and other protests, and Addams was actively involved in the women’s suffrage movement (Trost & Levin, 2010). They devised housing solutions for women; 50 members lived in six apartments. They refused donations from sources such as “dirty money” (Trost & Levin, 2010). Addams took an experimental approach to reality, which involved testing ideas to see what happened and then adjusting her actions accordingly (Trost & Levin, 2010). The doors were never locked, but the neighbors were initially suspicious. Addams did not like terms such as “cases”, ”clients,” or “patients” (Trost & Levin, 2010); rather, the people she encountered were her neighbors. She was part of the community and the neighborhood, and she sought to make sociology more present in society rather than confined to academia, a trend that has persisted ever since. The settlement movement became a precursor to social work. Addams’s view was that society was sick, not the individual; the symptoms in the individual arose from society (Trost & Levin, 2010). The spirit of Hull House is something that could be revived. The spirit of Hull House would serve as a counterbalance to what I have argued is a one, sided policy bias within sociology. However, one might then object that Jane Addams was a sociologist whose practice cannot be viewed as sociotherapy; it was not therapy, but rather a matter of organizing social interactions and life in the neighborhood. It was not a need for therapy that existed at Hull House, but simply a more bearable life with opportunities and support. It is therefore a mistake to call this “therapeutic practices.” Here, however, the question arises as to what is meant by “therapeutic practices.” If one has defined them as what occurs between a therapist and a client or patient, then that is not what Addams did. But given the trend of “social prescribing,” it is a common assumption to view the social sphere and the local community as having therapeutic and healing qualities.
Another argument points to the risk of psychologization, behaviorization, and individualization through sociotherapy. Sociotherapy then becomes an unwitting Trojan horse.
The risk of psychologization, in which sociotherapy becomes a Trojan horse, could be a concern for those who see a threat to the very existence of sociology when it approaches other fields of research. There is already criticism of the behaviorization of sociology, in which sociology becomes merely a matter of rewards and punishments at the individual level (King, 2019).
An important debate that has been ongoing within the field of clinical sociology is where the boundary lies with psychology. It is typical to begin the discussion with Durkheim’s view that sociology focuses on “social facts,” while at the same time pointing out that Durkheim also, in fact, made room for the psychological as part of the analysis. Most well, known is his discussion of the experience and feeling of “collective exaltation.” Durkheim writes, “the study of psychic, sociological phenomena is not a simple annex of sociology; it is the substance itself” (Durkheim, 1885). Cultural sociology has incorporated psychological research (DiMaggio, 1997). Other examples of the incorporation of psychological perspectives include the Marxist, Freudians, such as Marcuse. King argues that Randall Collins is an example of a sociologist who maintains the sociological perspective. Social therapy would need to insist that it is the social situation that shapes the individual, following Collins, for example, and not incorporate an individualized, psychologized, or behaviorist view of human beings (King, 2019). Social therapy would need to be based on assumptions about human beings that make it clear that the social is the foundation of change. This assumption is that the individual possesses distributed, varied, and limited agency, cognition, and projectivity (Mische, 2009; Bennett, 2010; Callon, 2021; Simon, 1957; Chalmers & Clark, 1998; Berglund, 2026). Agency is thus assumed to exist; one is not, therefore, a victim of a specific sociality, but rather the therapist can guide and explore with the client how to relate to different socialities in a new way that is sociologically informed.
As it has been so far, sociotherapy would risk remaining a curiosity within sociology and failing to make a significant impact on the rest of society’s practices and models of health and illness. Instead of establishing a separate research program, it is better to transform existing research programs from within. This is already being done through social psychiatry and social medicine.
Attempting to transform existing research frameworks is one strategy, but this does not preclude the simultaneous development of an alternative approach. This would give sociologists a field where they can more easily feel at home, where their theories are not viewed as “alternative” or require the word “social” in front of them to signal their social nature. Having a strong research program centered on sociotherapy allows one to establish, from the outset, axioms that are more in harmony with the assumptions made within sociology.
It is certainly true that some research exists, but first of all, it is very limited in comparison to the enormous research program surrounding psychotherapy. Furthermore, a problem is that the various subfields related to sociotherapy are small in themselves and do not engage with one another. There are no academic journals that explicitly promote this, yet research is still conducted in various fields that are partially isolated from one another. Together, these fields could form part of a more clearly defined research program that incorporates fields with clear links to sociology: medical sociology, social psychiatry, social epidemiology, social medicine, sociology of health, madness studies, psychosocial studies, social work, and, most relevant of all, critical social work. There are also psychologists who have emphasized the social and political aspects of therapy, aspects that need to be addressed more clearly and that could be incorporated into the research program of sociotherapy: critical/radical psychology, community psychology, social materialist psychology, and clinical social psychology.
Furthermore, a counterargument could be raised that those who call themselves clinical sociologists and are already practicing do not contribute anything particularly significant to sociology but are best described as a curiosity that has nothing to do with what sociology is about in general.
This is not a natural state of affairs but rather the result of a certain tradition within sociology as a field, in which a clinical, practical role has been distanced from. It is interesting to note that psychology as a field would be much smaller without all the various forms of psychotherapy. Research on psychotherapy has led society to perceive psychology as useful and has given psychology its prominent role as a scientific field in society. Within psychology, it has been taken for granted that researchers strive to ensure their findings are applied in some way. This is not something sociologists actually object to, but it has led to the practical consequence of relying solely on influencing policy.
Some might object that the methods required to study and develop a research program are disconnected from sociology’s methodological tradition, which involves data collection through interviews, observations, text analysis, and surveys. Sociology has generally not engaged in interventions; rather, bases its theories on observing society in various ways, but not on intervening in it. Psychology has likely relied on therapies as a resource to gain a better understanding of whether ideas within psychology hold true. These quasi, experiments have served as a resource alongside actual experiments. The extent to which they have been a resource is a matter of debate, with criticism that the power of quasi, experiments is overestimated (Moloney, 2013). There are major problems with double, blind experiments that would pose the same challenges in sociology. Sociology steers clear of experiments for a reason. A potentially related argument is that if sociology begins to adopt these methods, its distinctive character will diminish, which in turn will weaken sociology as an academic field.
Among sociological methods, there is an aversion to interventions. However, there is an important exception in action research. As already mentioned, there are sociologists who have worked in more applied ways, even at the micro level, such as Jane Addams. What Addams did could be systematized.
Furthermore, changes are taking place within academic fields. Sociology has become more empirically oriented, for example through network analysis that utilizes computing power. This can be compared to the field of economics, which has adopted new methods such as experiments in laboratories, “natural experiments,” and randomized controlled trials at the societal level, pioneered by Vernon Smith, Daniel Kahneman, Richard Thaler, Esther Duflo, and Joshua Angrist, who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. Sociology could also adopt new methods to strengthen itself as a discipline. The distinctiveness of sociological methods might diminish, but that need not mean that sociological theories and assumptions would disappear.
Another important risk to consider is the risk of (over)simplifying sociology. Vulgar sociology could spread, for example, by being incorporated into New Age or self, help discourses. Sociotherapy would risk becoming depoliticizing and instrumentalized, for instance, by viewing the social as something to be used to become healthier. For example, sociology could become more manualized and formalized, much as psychology often is in psychotherapy. It would also likely be instrumentalized by being incorporated into an efficiency, driven mindset, which could lead sociotherapy to face the same fate as psychotherapy in certain cases. While this would be an unnecessarily fatalistic way of thinking, it is a risk that must be watched for. Sociotherapy is thus better positioned to resist such instrumentalization due to the wealth of insights available regarding precisely these kinds of processes.
A simplification of sociology is not necessarily something that should be viewed solely as a problem. Zetterberg called for simplifications of sociology long ago (Wan & Wan, 2020), a call that has not been heeded, except in a few rare instances. Simplification is probably something one must accept if one wants sociological consciousness, imagination, or perspective to spread throughout society and be able to compete with economic and psychological consciousness, which are so strongly entrenched. Sociology can exist at different levels, a simplified version and a more complex one at the research level.
This could lead to a simplification of sociology that results in the loss of its critical potential, just as happened with “artistic criticism,” which was incorporated into the new spirit of capitalism (Boltanski & Chipello, 2007). An analysis is needed of how to prevent criticism from merely leading to an enlightened false consciousness and new forms of exploitation. I believe this criticism is warranted, especially when examining the research already conducted in clinical sociology. There, it often appears that the broader processes and the critical approach disappear; instead, the focus shifts heavily to microsociology, with the end result being that the work done is essentially the same as in psychotherapy, albeit using concepts such as “emotional rules” drawn from Hochschild’s work. This obscures Hochschild’s critical point that these emotional rules can lead, for example, to a sense of alienation when emotions and personality are commodified in various contexts.
Another argument that has been directed against psychotherapy could be directed against sociotherapy. An overreliance on “the talking cure” (Moloney, 2013) could become relevant if sociotherapy stops at talking and does not create exercises, practices, and systems to better facilitate actions that transform the person’s social reality so that the therapeutic potential of the social is utilized. Finally, we might end up in a situation where people talk about “sociobable” just as they today talk about “psychobable” (Briers, 2012).
Another argument is a critique of the notion that sociology should be problem, solving or attempt to build wisdom in society. Sociology should be either positivist or interpretive; with this ontology, it follows that sociology should maintain a certain distance from actively intervening in society.
Phronetic social science and phronetic sociology represent a new paradigm that strikes a balance between positivist and interpretive sociology. The goal of phronetic sociology is to increase phronesis, or practical wisdom, in society (Flygbjerg, 2001). It is a new problem and practice oriented paradigm that shifts the of sociology as a whole, asserting that it should always be regarded as public sociology (Flybjerg, 2008). Sociotherapy, as a research program grounded in fronetic sociology could through sociotherapy, be seen as increasing societal wisdom in encounters with clients.
Finally, the current lack of interest among sociologists might suggest that the field is not of great interest. I include this argument even though it is a fallacy, an ad populum argument based on the assumption that the majority is right. It is likely that a process of socialization occurs during education, where few students even encounter clinical sociology. Hardly anyone among sociologists in Sweden is aware of clinical sociology as a field. A study was conducted to examine the effects on sociology students of taking a course in clinical sociology (Wan & Wan, 2020). One effect was that the students felt sociology became more concrete. There are thus pedagogical benefits to including clinical sociology in the curriculum, as it fosters a greater understanding and flexibility in working with sociological concepts, theories, and models applied at various levels.