“Why are there no great British social theorists?”

This interesting discussion between John Urry and Chris Rojek is from the 2011 BSA conference. The question in this post’s title comes from Rojek at 14 minutes. Rojek cites an argument made by Bryan Turner to ask the question. He argues that British sociology has tended to import continental theory, synthesise it and export it to America rather than being a point of origin for ground breaking work. He asks why there is ‘no Habermas, no Bourdieu, no Foucault’ in British social theory. John Urry took objection to this and then cited Bauman and Hall as examples of innovative theorists within British sociology. I find this discussion problematic for three reasons. Firstly, in the way it denigrates ‘synthesis’ while simultaneously ignoring it in, for example, Habermas. Secondly, it is an egregious example of how brazenly the contribution of Giddens is sometimes written out of history (as ‘mere synthesis’) despite how innovative his middle period work was. Thirdly, I think this discussion reflects how under acknowledged Margaret Archer’s contribution to social theory has been within British sociology. As far as I’m aware, her work is far more widely read and recognised internationally than it is in the UK.