Sociology has also been built by sociologizing ancient philosophy, a process that can likewise be applied to sociological wisdom. Sociology has been viewed by some as a parasite on the field of philosophy. In that case, sociology is a productive parasite that draws ideas from other fields and, through a process of sociologization, makes them visible and uses them to understand the social world. The sociologization of philosophy is, in a sense, inevitable because sociology, in its attempt to be descriptive, is often, and aims to be, normative as well, which leads to the incorporation of various ethical theories.
Marx was inspired by Epicurus when he contemplated life after capitalism and wrote his doctoral dissertation on Epicurus. Sociologists have already incorporated existential philosophers such as Heidegger and Nietzsche. Cynicism is the school of thought that has received the most attention among sociologists and social theorists, primarily from Sloterdijk, Foucault, Paulsen, and Žižek. Berglund (2026) has sociologized Aristotle’s virtue ethics, and this book is an extension of that work. Purser has begun a sociologization of Buddhism, which until now has been primarily psychologized (Purser, 2019). Moehller and D’Ambrioso (2021) sociologize Taoism. As mentioned, Marx can be said to have carried out a form of sociologization of Epicureanism and Aristotle through the concept of use, value.
All psychotherapies have connections to ancient philosophy. Positive psychology, for example, has connections to Stoicism, Aristotle, and Epicureanism. Albert Ellis, in founding cognitive therapy, made explicit references to Stoicism, including behavioral experiments, perspectives, and Socratic dialogues. Within ACT, the connections to Buddha and Lao, Tzu are strong. It is not a given that these philosophies should be linked to psychology exclusively and not used by sociologists, but today this has become naturalized as a matter of course.
Angela Nagle’s analysis links cynicism to a practice in today’s online world of trolling and boundary, crossing behavior (Nagle, 2017). The sociological study of cynicism has been most prominently advanced by Sloterdijk and Žižek through their comparison of modern cynicism with ancient cynicism (Sloterdijk, 1987). Paulsen discusses how cynicism easily becomes cynicism in an endless loop if one attempts to be cynical toward cynicism itself (Paulsen, 2013). Parrhesia (truth, telling) was a practice that Foucault highlighted as central to the Enlightenment project (Hadot, 2015). Cynicism can generally be seen as a “way of dealing with knowledge, a relativization, an ironic treatment”, n which action is prioritized over theory (Paulsen, 2013; Sloterdijk, 1987). Paulsen links cynical resistance to the prioritization of action, which can be coded as “misbehavior”, such as disrespect, humor, and playfulness, in, for example, a workplace (Paulsen, 2013; Flemming, 2005). Cynicism involves prioritizing theory to gain respectability, which becomes incorporated into the prevailing social order (Sloterdijk in Paulsen, 2013, 154). Paulsen points out that much resistance can serve as “mental safety valves that prevent workers from burning down the office” (Paulsen, 2013, 155).
The psychologization of Buddhism is a major trend in psychotherapy and is central to third, wave cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Mindfulness, acceptance, and self, compassion are the key concepts that have been extensively researched. This psychologization has also been described as a “Westernization” involving a highly individualized and decontextualized version (Purser, 2019). Purser refers to this as “McMindfulness” rather than a genuine form of mindfulness. Through this, Purser has initiated a sociologization of Buddhism, in which he analyzes both how mindfulness as a practice can be used to serve certain interests and how it can be adapted to a dominant culture and scientific field such as psychology. Purser argues that what has been overlooked is the social and political foundation inherent in Buddhism.
An ancient philosophy that has not been sociologized, but has instead been criticized sociologically on flawed grounds, is Stoicism. This is a shame because Stoicism seems to hold a certain appeal in today’s culture that sociology could help us understand even better by highlighting the social and political aspects of Stoicism, which are often lost in its psychologized and individualized version. The aim is to “draw upon” philosophy and practical philosophy, as sociology has done so many times before, which has often led to the creation of new and exciting ideas and theories through Hegel, Nietzsche, the utilitarians, and the Cynics. The psychologization of the Stoics has already taken place through Aaron Beck’s development of cognitive behavioral therapy. Beck’s psychologization was achieved by drawing heavily on Stoic ideas and citing them repeatedly. The psychologization of Stoicism continues in self, help literature, where it is often linked to psychological theories. The sociological study of Stoicism in particular can be seen as a potentially fruitful project because CBT has been most successful in a therapeutic context and is the most widely researched, partly due to its simplicity. One interpretation of this could be that Stoicism has greater strength than CBT; it may therefore be intriguing to explore connections that can be made to sociology and to apply Stoic ideas in a sociotherapeutic context.
The sociologization of Stoicism could be considered too great a challenge if one starts from the myth that Stoicism is highly introspective and individualistic. Stoicism has, on rare occasions, been highlighted as more social and political by some (Schaffner, 2021). The word “stoic” derives from the place where their doctrine was taught: the stoa pokile (“painted porch”), which was an open public space overlooking Athens’ ancient agora (marketplace) (Schaffner, 2021, 37). What makes it individualistic is the portrayal that all problems are reactions to reality and that suffering is a reaction to external events (Schaffner, 2021, 38). However, this overlooks how much the Stoics considered it important to be engaged in politics and the common good; the Stoic is a “political animal,” to use Aristotle’s term. One example is Seneca, who on several occasions had to choose between “lesser evils” in his attempts to influence the course of Roman history under various emperors (Schaffner, 2021, 40). The Stoic, then, is not someone who withdraws into themselves but rather someone who must strategically engage with others to create a good life. Furthermore, Aurelius argues that we should view ourselves as bees in a hive and that we are “born to cooperate,” belonging together just as body parts belong to a body, while Seneca maintains that we belong together like stones in a stone bridge (Schaffner, 2021, 46). The Stoic Seneca argues that we should act selflessly and in the service of humanity, not for our own material self, interest; He writes that the Stoic is the one who has the greatest “love for people, broader interests, and the common good,” and that people should “be of use, help others, and care not only for ourselves but for everything in general and for each individual in particular” (Seneca in Hadot, 2015, 164). Aurelius argues that we should be “community, minded” rather than competing to win against others in various ways (Holiday, 2016, 315). Aurelius writes that we should direct our “impulses” toward the common good and, through training and habit, curb our desires and aversions, in other words, a strong dose of moderation and humility (Holiday, 2016, 343). Musonius Rufus emphasizes the importance of generosity and spending money on people rather than on material things (Holiday, 2016, 138). Stoics view justice and truth as important values, which sets them apart from CBT, which can be disconnected from what is true, since what is considered rational can sometimes be untrue, for example, assuming too much agency as a human being or underestimating political factors in one’s life. Seneca writes that greed is a drive within us that we need to learn to manage. We should also celebrate our friends’ achievements (Holiday, 2016, 299), and every moment is a time for kindness. Stoics thus have a highly relational view of the world and the self, that we are part of something greater, which is the exact opposite of an individualistic solipsism.
There are aspects that do not hold up well sociologically, such as the Stoics’ tendency to overestimate people’s reason and willpower (Schaffner, 2021, 47, 58). This can lead to the problem of trying to control negative thoughts and failing, a form of “cruel optimism” (Schaffner, 2021, 57, 58; Berlant, 2011). This is similar to the criticism leveled against CBT. However, it is not about controlling thoughts entirely; it is about training them. Stoics have been accused of overestimating willpower and our reason. Stoics, however, believe that habits are important and that we should also create counter, habits (Holiday, 2016, 312). An important interpreter of Stoicism today, Nassim Taleb, argues that Stoicism is about transforming emotions and taming them, not about trying to eliminate them entirely (Taleb, 2012). Frustration should be transformed into action. It is the duty toward the good that requires us to consciously change ourselves (Hadot, 2015, 162). This is linked to the Stoics’ political life. We can thus find a balance here, in both accepting and taking action while continuing to work toward improvement.
Stoics can bring to sociology the humility one needs as a human being in a rapidly changing society, where a certain degree of acceptance is necessary to cope and not become fixated on various events. Suffering is constant, just as Buddhism teaches; we should create systems to manage this acceptance and practice it together. Stoics were employed in Rome’s schools to teach their doctrine and practical codes of conduct designed to help people. Thus, Stoicism does not mean that people should be left alone; rather, they need support through various practices that are encouraged in social contexts (Hadot, 2015, 163). Stoics thus strike a good balance between attributing a certain degree of agency to individuals while also recognizing that social structures and processes are greater than ourselves; however, we can support the individual through practices and doctrines, with the goal of fostering the best possible cooperation with other people. The Stoics thus present various social heuristics that the individual can use as a guide to navigate the world, captured in concise and often powerful quotes and aphorisms.
Below are suggestions for various exercises based on a sociological approach to Stoicism. This approach takes the exercises found in Stoicism and applies a sociological perspective to them.
Sociological Stoic acceptance/perspective, taking. Practice imagining yourself as a being in a social universe. Stoic meditation involves viewing the world from above. This shift in perspective is also what sociological meditation does, but instead of reflecting on the universe in general, it focuses on the social universe. This exercise helps to bring both introspection and outward observation into greater balance. We look inward with the awareness that we are part of something larger, and we acknowledge that we cannot find the truth about ourselves within ourselves. Sociological meditation can be about enjoying the act of observing the social world; it is a way to live more intensely by seeing more clearly what surrounds us. Sociological meditation can be infused with various insights from sociology that can shape the meditation experience.
Sociological metamorphosis and social death. Another aspect is observing how everything is constantly changing, a universal metamorphosis that is always underway, and that all of this is moving toward “decay and destruction” (Hadot, 2015, 166). Aurelius writes that “every action should be performed as if it were the last” (in Hadot, 2015, 167). The construction of time as something infinite in the social sphere is part of modernity and stands in paradoxical contrast to the pressure to accomplish so much in our lives. Aurelius also points to a social dimension with the idea that your actions matter. What would you do if it were your last action? It would not be something you did for your own pleasure. Aurelius argues that we must reflect on how short our lives are and that we should strive to become good quickly (Holiday, 2016, 340). This runs counter to the common notion that we have time to waste on not being as good as we can be and constantly trying to make an effort
Sociological Stoic deconstruction. Aurelius deconstructed various things in order to see them in their “naked” form (Schaffner, 2021, 45). Stoicism is thus an early precursor to deconstructionists like Derrida, as one is urged to be critical and vigilant toward both external and “internal discourses” (Hadot, 2015, 165). Stoicism can also be seen as a focuser of attention that has been sociologized within cognitive sociology (Zerubavel, 2015). Stoicism holds that we should strive to live a life of constant attentiveness. Seneca argues that leisure without study is death, which can be seen as a sweeping critique of the focus on entertainment that dominates many people’s leisure time today.
Sociological Stoic behavioral experiments. In addition to harboring great optimism regarding everyone’s agency, provided it is cultivated and supported through the creation of habits and rituals, Stoics emphasize action, advocating that one should be active with mottos such as “let fate find you active,” which stems from their admiration for Cynicism, a school of thought that prioritizes action. This can be linked to a life of experimentation as practiced by well, known sociologists such as Jane Addams (Trost & Levin, 2010). Behavioral experiments serve to activate and navigate a complex reality where it is difficult to devise the best solution; instead, one needs to “tinker” through an iterative process.
De, emotionalization. The emotionalization thesis posits that society and human subjectivity have become emotionalized, in other words, there has been an intensification of emotions (Illouz, 2019; Holmes, 2010). This has occurred alongside increased rationalization (Illouz, 2019). People’s lives are characterized by “emotional projects” such as happiness, wellness, and freedom from anxiety, while at the same time products are emotionalized through “emotional branding” (Illouz, 2019). At the same time, the public sphere has become more intimate, with a focus on emotions such as authenticity, warmth, and other feelings (Sennett, 1977; Han, 2015).
Stoicism places a strong emphasis on de, emotionalization. Stoicism could be a way to counter the over, emotionalization that characterizes people’s lives. This focus on de, emotionalization is evident in these quotes from Epictetus and Seneca:
“How does it help…to make troubles heavier by bemoaning them?
“It isn’t the things themselves that disturb people, but the judgments they form about them.
We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more in our imagination than in reality.
Don’t seek for everything to happen as you wish it would, but rather wish that everything happens as it actually will, then your life will flow well.
Nassim Taleb has written: “A Stoic is someone who transforms fear into prudence, pain into transformation, mistakes into initiation, and desire into undertaking.” De, emotionalization, then, would not mean eliminating emotions, which is impossible, but rather toning them down and directing them toward different purposes: “Stoicism is about the domestication of emotions, not their elimination.” What does this domestication of emotions entail?
Reformulating one’s life projects beyond emotions. Having an “emotional project” (Illouz, 2019) for life will make emotions the yardstick for how well our lives are going. With emotional life projects, emotions will carry greater weight.
Distancing from various “emotidies” (commodified emotions) (Illouz, 2019). Factors other than emotions must be taken into account when we think about ourselves.
Illouz argues that “emotional authenticity” has become central to modern humans (Illouz, 2019). The first is to distance oneself from the pervasive “pressure to be authentic” in society through the practice of genuine pretending (Moellher & D’Ambrioso, 2021). The second is to seek a certain degree of authenticity, but one that is also present in cognition and action. A form of “weak authenticity” that also focuses on cognition and action involves examining whether one’s thoughts are original to some degree.
Virtue-based assessment of thoughts: Actions can then be considered in relation to various virtues such as courage and patience. This becomes a competing way of evaluating one’s own life. Collins describes thoughts as “internalized dialogue” (Collins, 2004), where, in the age of emotionalization, this internalized dialogue is permeated by emotions. By thinking in terms of virtues, nstead of emotions, emotions are given a context of actions in relation to virtues.
In psychology, it has been observed that naming an emotion creates distance. Naming emotions is a practice worth employing. Aurelius points to this practice by writing: “The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are.” Psychologists would emphasize simply describing the emotion as it is. This is good, but a sociological exercise would also involve addressing emotional states that sociologists have diagnosed as anomie (Durkheim, 1950), alienation (Marx), or consuming passions (Sennett, 2002). This is linked to the exercise of externalizing discourses. The power of discourse is made visible, enabling students to discover and discuss competing discourses with others, which can then be internalized.
Stoics have a perspective on the social realm that sociologists consider important, something that the psychologization of Stoicism has often overlooked. This perspective that Stoics possess can be seen as a rationalized enchantment (Berglund, 2026) in that, according to Aurelius, one should use reason to direct one’s gaze toward things that are “enchanted”, the great whole, and feel a sense of wonder at the universe of which one is a part. This is part of the shift in perspective and outlook that creates a diminished sense of self and a focus on the external world. A sociological approach to Stoicism is possible when one takes in the entirety of what the Stoics taught, rather than selecting only certain quotes that make them appear one, sidedly introspective, selfish, and overly reliant on reason and willpower. The sociological analysis of Stoicism shows that Beck and other psychologists have overlooked a central aspect of Stoicism. As a result, CBT has shortcomings in the political realm and fails to guide the client toward becoming part of a community. The ancient Stoics would likely not be entirely satisfied with Beck’s application of Stoicism in the development of CBT.
In summary, there is a need to create specific and more general socio, educational resources that do not currently exist. There are no manuals to serve as a foundation, leaving sociotherapists largely on their own and forcing them to adopt an impressionistic approach in their clinical practice. This limits the ability to systematically improve and test different forms of socio, education. Socio, education is used, but unsystematically and without a way to compare the various studies and approaches currently employed in these fields. To test this, a project could be undertaken to develop various socio, educational materials. These could be based on different theories, but ideally, they should reflect the eclectic approach encountered in an introductory university, level course.
Bibliotherapy is a related field that has demonstrated positive effects. Sociological bibliotherapy is one way in which socio, education could be conveyed. Socio, educational materials would make it possible to test online therapy, which has been conducted with some success using CBT. Part of bibliotherapy would involve reading fiction, which opens up opportunities to introduce various sociological concepts. If there is resistance to reading, one could record podcasts and audio essays. The text and images that the person already consumes could be used as material. What movies has the person watched? What have they engaged with on social media? Or in newspapers?
Socio, education should be combined with action. Various exercises will be described below. So far, sociological heuristics have been linked to various exercises. Clinical sociologists have currently been using a coaching/motivational approach with certain techniques and homework assignments. What is the best combination? What elements should be included in socio, education?
What has been discussed so far to build socio, education toward sociological consciousness is this:
Teach the fundamentals of sociology and the “sociological gaze,” as exemplified by Randall Collins. Collins’ “sociological gaze” involves looking beyond what is directly observable, beyond what is familiar and taken for granted (Azarain, 2018, 12).
Make it clear that the goal is to build a “socio, self” rather than a “psy, self” or psychological consciousness (Rose, 1999).
Focus socio, education on the specific problems the client faces.
Teach various sociological heuristics to provide a distilled version of sociology. The goal is to build sociological phronesis, or practical wisdom. This is based on phronetic social science and phronetic sociology (Flyvbjerg, 2001). In practice, sociological awareness means being able to apply sociological insights and develop wisdom (phronesis) grounded in sociology. In this way, sociological theories are transformed into tools to be used in one’s own life or as tools for interventions at various levels, micro, meso, and macro. This is a form of reification, or instrumentalization of scientific theories, which is the best response we currently have to guide us in an open search for the good life.
Sociologize the philosophical heritage to build sociological consciousness and sociological wisdom.