Abstract

This article responds to Richard Kilminster’s critique of my earlier article published in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, which raised questions about the status and limits of Norbert Elias’s sociology of knowledge. The article takes issue with Kilminster’s claim that the earlier piece identified “fatal” flaws in Elias’s approach and aimed at re-asserting philosophical authority over the social sciences. It is argued that, on the contrary, the earlier article was broadly sympathetic to Elias’s visions of both the sociology of knowledge and of the social sciences more generally. However, some of the concepts that Elias regarded as central to these, especially the key notion of “social processes,” are highly problematic, and others have been superseded by more recent developments. This article also defends the need for “under-laboring” within the social sciences, arguing that it does not carry the kinds of connotations that Kilminster imagines.