deltie.net archive

Extracted abstract

This paper develops an alterna�ve vision of public sociology. While public sociology is o�en defined through the ac�ons of professional sociologists, this paper calls for a recogni�on of reverse tutelage in public sociology. Here, publics are seen as sociological interlocutors who can, and o�en do, produce sociological theories and analyses which can inform professional sociology. I demonstrate this reverse tutelage by focusing on an�colonial and an�racist social movements, including the Zapa�stas, Black Lives Mater, Pales�ne Ac�on, and Cops are Flops. I highlight how they produce sociological theories of power, neoliberalism, race, bordering, and violence that can orient professional sociology towards rela�onal forms of analysis that build connec�ons between different sites of resistance. In doing so, I highlight how the boundary between what Burawoy terms "professional" and "cri�cal" sociology is much more porous than ini�ally theorized, and that cri�cal sociology -from wider publicscan significantly shape professional sociology.

From public sociology to sociological publics: the importance of reverse tutelage to social theory

Introduc�on

In 2007, the American Sociological Associa�on (ASA) wrote Standards of Public Sociology:

Guidelines for Use by Academic Departments in Personnel Reviews. These guidelines were the result of a two-year study by a newly formed task force on the ins�tu�onaliza�on of public sociology, formed in the a�ermath of Michael Burawoy's ASA plenary on public sociology in 2004. The intended effects of these standards for public sociology were twofold.

Firstly, there was a desire from the ASA to highlight "the longstanding contribu�ons of sociologists to the public's understanding of, and ability to act on, the social issues of our �me" (ASA 2007:1). Secondly, there was a desire to stress how public sociology was still sociology: it was s�ll scien�fic, peer reviewed, and methodologically rigorous. In this context, the ASA guidelines were constructed such that the work of sociologists involved in public sociology was appropriately credited and valued in ins�tu�onal assessments. What is apparent, however, is that as public sociology was being ins�tu�onalized into the American disciplinary framework, the understanding of public sociology largely revolved around the ac�ons of employed sociologists. From Burawoy's (2005a Burawoy's ( , 2007) ) repeated statement that professional sociology is a prerequisite to public sociology, through to the aforemen�oned ASA guidelines essen�ally revolving around the issue of how tenure and promo�ons commitees can assess publicly facing scholarship, there has always been a proclivity to define public sociology through the ac�ons of public sociologists. In this context, my paper takes an alterna�ve viewpoint to public sociology.

Central to my argument is that there are porous boundaries between sociology (a discipline ins�tu�onalized in educa�onal systems), sociologists (employees in educa�onal ins�tu�ons), and the sociological (a way of thinking which highlights germane social processes).

Understandings of public sociology o�en center the discipline of professional sociology, and the work of professional sociologists. We need to spend more �me also thinking about how there are publics who are sociological interlocutors in their own right, forming their own sociological theories, analyses and interpreta�ons in a way that can actually enrich professional sociology. Following the work of Gopal (2019) , I refer to this itera�on of public sociology as "reverse tutelage"; here, the technocra�c dynamic of the sociologist holding more authority and exper�se in dialogical space with the public is reversed, and instead it is the public who are producing the sociological theory(ies) which can inform professional sociology. I demonstrate this reverse tutelage by focusing on an�-colonial and an�racist social movements, including the Zapa�stas, Black Lives Mater, Pales�ne Ac�on, and Cops are Flops. I highlight how they produce sociological theories of power, neoliberalism, race, bordering, and violence that can enrich professional sociology by orien�ng the discipline towards rela�onal forms of analysis that build connec�ons between different sites of resistance. In doing so, I highlight how the boundary between what Burawoy terms "professional" and "cri�cal" sociology is much more porous than ini�ally theorized, and that cri�cal sociology -from wider publics -can significantly shape professional sociology. This paper is not an atack on professional sociology, but rather tries to pinpoint a way to con�nue the expansion of our discipline into cri�cal direc�ons.

Burawoy on the four itera�ons of sociology

The vision of public sociology defined by Michael Burawoy is, by now, well known to many of us working in the discipline 1 . For sake of clarity, I will briefly overview Burawoy's key tenets, before proceeding to highlight two cri�cisms: firstly, that it remains technocra�cally fixated on the ac�ons of public sociologists, and secondly, that the given defini�on of "cri�cal sociology" seems too similar to professional sociology -again, because of a focus on the work of professional sociologists.

Crucial to Burawoy's approach is the divide between professional, cri�cal, policy, and public sociology. Policy sociology is defined as "sociology in the service of a goal defined by a client. Policy sociology's raison d'etre is to provide solu�ons to problems that are presented to us, or to legi�mate solu�ons that have already been reached" (Burawoy 2005a:9) . Such policy sociology might involve the hiring of sociologist to carry out work for a policy ini�a�ve; in the current era, one might think of the Biden administra�on hiring Alondra Nelson to direct the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or the Brookings Ins�tute working with prodigious scholars like Louise Seasmter on debt cancella�on.

Policy sociology is contrasted to public sociology. Public sociology is built around a dialogical rela�onship between the sociologist and the public, where "the agenda of each is brought to the table, in which each adjusts to the other" (Burawoy 2005a:9) . Importantly, Burawoy does not see such publics as pre-fixed en��es, but rather views them through a rela�onal, Habermasian approach in which publics are cons�tuted by their co-ar�cula�on of shared interests and condi�ons (see also Starr 2021) . Crucial to public sociology is that it involves: most simply […] taking sociology to publics beyond the university, engaging them in dialogue about public issues that have been studied by sociologists. Indeed, it is a triple dialogue -a dialogue among sociologists, between sociologists and publics, and most importantly within publics themselves (Burawoy 2005b:71) Public and policy sociology are not necessarily antagonis�c to each other's aims, and o�en policy sociology can become public sociology (and vice versa). Importantly, however, Burawoy (2005a:10) argues that "there can be neither policy nor public sociology without a professional sociology that supplies true and tested methods, accumulated bodies of knowledge, orien�ng ques�ons, and conceptual frameworks". So-called professional sociology thus becomes the bedrock of Burawoy's approach, defined broadly as "mul�ple intersec�ng research programs, each with their assump�ons, exemplars, defining ques�ons, conceptual apparatuses, and evolving theories" (Burawoy 2005a:10) . Lastly, alongside this professional sociology, one also has cri�cal sociology, which is broadly the process of exposing and cri�quing the norma�ve assump�ons built into professional sociology. Burawoy's own example of such cri�cal sociology includes C Wright Mills' (1959) work on the sociological imagina�on, where he lamented sociology's move towards irrelevance. This fourfold division of sociology becomes essen�al to Burawoy's vision of public sociology, which I will now expand upon.

Importantly, Burawoy's vision of public sociology -and the fourfold split -itself is based in a history of (especially US) sociology. Burawoy (2005b) argues that prior to World War One, the divide between professional and public sociology was significantly porous. As highlighted through cases such as W.E.B Du Bois (Burawoy 2005b (Burawoy , 2022a (Burawoy , 2022b)) , Burawoy points out that US sociology in the 19 th and early 20 th century had close rela�onships with both policy sociology and public sociology: Du Bois' work in policy at the Atalanta School (see also Wright II 2002) , as well his involvement with the NAACP and his editorship at The Crisis was demonstra�ve of this. For Burawoy (2022a), Du Bois' involvement in professional, cri�cal, public, and policy sociology showed a vision of the discipline that was mul�faceted. A�er World War One, however, Burawoy (2005b:70) argues that you get "increasing separa�on of professional sociology from publics and a con�nuing dialogue with the policy world", followed by "an internal cri�que of professional sociology-the ques�oning of policy sociology through the vehicle of cri�cal sociology". Here, sociologists like C Wright Mills and Alvin Gouldner exposed how the ideological founda�ons of policy sociology tended to be largely reproduc�ve of the status quo, while especially from the 1970s it became apparent that the absence of alterna�ve "views from the margins" from the sociological canon rendered "mainstream sociology […] anachronis�c" (Burawoy 2005b:70) . Through the 1970s onward, you thus got the incorpora�on of elements of cri�cal sociology into professional sociology (though not men�oned by Burawoy, one could spot this with the emergence of texts such as Ladner's (1973 ) Death of White Sociology, or Patricia Hill Collins' (1986) concept of the outsiders within).

As we then moved into the 21 st century, Burawoy argues that we enter a fourth wave of sociology marked by a new rela�onship between public and professional sociology. Here, Burawoy firstly argues that because professional, policy and cri�cal sociology have developed so much through the 21 st century, we are in a beter place now to produce sophis�cated forms of public sociology; as he comments: "We are now sufficiently secure in our science to engage with publics, to promote a deeper and broader understanding of our endangered world, and thereby reinvigorate sociology with the pressing issues of our �mes" (Burawoy 2005b:71) . For Burawoy (2005a Burawoy ( , 2005b)) , the 21 st century can give rise to new forms of organic public sociology. As he states on such organic public sociology (Burawoy 2005b:72 ):

[in] what I call the organic public sociologist, who is in�mately and directly connected to publics themselves, o�en ar�cula�ng and represen�ng issues that publics are already struggling with. There are myriads of unpublicized projects of this kind, involving labor organiza�ons, community groups, communi�es of faith, environmental groups, neighborhood associa�ons, and so forth […] here publics are local rather than na�onal, thick (bound by a dense set of rela�ons) rather than thin, ac�ve rather than passive, o�en counter-publics rather than mainstream. In Burawoy's account of the possibili�es of public sociology, therefore, he stresses how (public) sociologists can be at the fore of working with and alongside various counterpublics, being key figures in the ongoing quest for social jus�ce -a�er all, for many people this is precisely what sociology is about (see Prasad 2021) . While Burawoy originally discussed such possibili�es for organic public sociology in the early 2000s, by 2023 it seems as though many of his predic�ons have been realised. The sociologists Christopher R. Indeed, the very importance for public sociology now is even more pressing than when Burawoy first declared its urgency. As Burawoy (2005a:6) discussed in his ASA address, part of the reason why we need public sociology is because "the world has moved right". A poli�cally engaged sociology of inequality was thus needed in that era, Burawoy contended, such that they could build an ac�ve resistance to both the inequali�es engendered by rightwing poli�cs, and the frames of thinking propagated by right-wing intellectuals. This assessment of an ever-increasing right is even more appropriate now in 2023, where farright poli�cal projects are increasingly being presented as mainstream (see Mondon and Winter 2020) . Speaking directly to this issue, Burawoy (2023:20) thus contends that "sociology cannot insulate itself within the academy […] but must advance into the public sphere and there excite debate about the direc�on of society, educate ci�zenry about the dangers of market commodifica�on and poli�cal ra�onaliza�on". In this regard, as advocated by Bifulco and Borghi (2023) in their recent appraisal of Burawoy's work, public sociology might be a path towards utopia in a context of widening social inequali�es and fissures. Indeed, Bifulco and Borghi (2023) and Burawoy (2022c , Burawoy et al 2023) also make this argument for the urgency of public sociology in a context where market forces are ac�vely working to turn universi�es from spaces of public discourse an�-intellectual, profit-making ins�tu�ons. Here, public sociology is needed to convince wider publics of the need for sociology (and higher educa�on) itself 2 .

Rogers' and Geo

The gi�ing model in public sociology

Despite the analy�cal depth of Burawoy's argument, and his correct assessment of the vital nature of public sociology, I want to draw out two germane cri�cisms. Namely, I want to emphasise firstly how Burawoy's understanding of public sociology concentrates far too much on the ac�ons of professional sociologists, to the extent that it runs in tension with his defini�on of public sociology as dialogical. Secondly, I argue that Burawoy's defini�on and analysis of cri�cal sociology is too similar to professional sociology; instead we should look much more towards the rela�ons between cri�cal and public sociology, where we can see that cri�cal sociology is o�en produced by publics themselves. I conclude this cri�que by sugges�ng that a more thorough assessment (and advoca�on) of public sociology can be offered if we move beyond the extant confla�on in Burawoy's account between sociology, sociologists, and the sociological.

Public sociology and the public sociologist

First is my cri�que that Burawoy's account of public sociology focuses too much on the ac�ons of professional sociologists. Consider, for instance, Burawoy's discussion of Du Boisboth in his ASA address (2005a) , and in his more recent scholarship (2022b, 2022c). Burawoy (2022c:3) states without hesita�on his belief that Du Bois was "the greatest public sociologist to have walked the earth", but his analysis of Du Bois' public sociology centres the individual genius of Du Bois over the dialogical rela�ons he forged (and indeed, the dialogical rela�ons which shaped Du Bois' sociology itself). Thus, in his ASA address, Burawoy (2005a:7) praises Du Bois' ([1903] 2007) Souls of Black Folk as a prototype of tradi�onal public sociology in the way that it is writen by a sociologist, "read beyond the academy", and became "the vehicle of a public discussion about the nature of U.S. society-the nature of its values, the gap between its promise and its reality, its malaise, its tendencies". Later in the same address, Burawoy (2005a:14) describes Du Bois' evolving journey from the academy to the public sphere; quo�ng at length (emphasis added):

Increasingly disaffected with the academy and marginalized within it by his race, a�er comple�ng The Philadelphia Negro in 1899, and a�er se�ng up and running the Atlanta Sociological Laboratory at the University of Atlanta between 1897 and 1910, W. E. B. Du Bois le� academia to found the Na�onal Associa�on for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and become editor of its magazine, Crisis. In this public role he wrote all sorts of popular essays, inevitably influenced by his sociology. In 1934 he returned to the academy to chair the sociology department at Atlanta, where he finished another classic monograph, Black Reconstruc�on, only to depart once again, a�er World War Two, for na�onal and interna�onal public venues. His relentless campaigns for racial justice were the acme of public sociology.

In this account, Burawoy makes it seem as though Du Bois' public sociology was public because his contribu�ons and labor were concentrated outside of the academy; the dialogical rela�ons which are said to be so important to public sociology are absent from analysis. Indeed, Du Bois is described by Burawoy as being evidence that sociologists are also members of publics -in this case, seen through Du Bois being a founding member of the NAACP -but Burawoy does not discuss how other members of the NAACP were had with wider publics. This problem is exacerbated in the way that Burawoy comments on how Du Bois (2022b:18) demonstrated "a public engagement that forces social science out of its academic cocoon, entering the public arena with social theory and empirical analysis, framing public debates, and issues". While Burawoy originally defined public sociology as an adjustment between public and academic actors, now when describing Du Bois his analysis seems to be much more centred on a sociologist bringing sociology to the public arena, overdetermining, rather than being a product of, public discussion. While Burawoy's analysis of Du Bois is historically accurate, it does leave out one dimension of Du Bois' public sociology: the process by which Du Bois listened to, and learned from, various publics which then shaped his sociological analysis of the global colorline. Consider, for example, Du Bois' (1958) own comments about atending the First Universal Race Congress in London, 1911 . Here, Du Bois (1958) both notes how atendees of this conference enlivened his interest in Pan-Africanism, and helped him to note the transna�onal connec�ons that existed between racial exploita�on across different geopoli�cal regions (emphasis added): I was convinced that the descendants of Africa must therefore unite in common ac�on in order to make their freedom possible in the modern world. How this was to be done I did not know. But the experience of meeting World Conference of Races members of Africa itself, as well as Central America, inspired me to try it. Coloured persons from Asia whose problems, so similar to ours, I had not been conscious of, hitherto encouraged me.

Two themes -Pan-Africanism, and a transna�onal understanding of race -which became so central to Du Bois' sociological works such as The World and Africa ([1947] Wilson's policy-turned-public sociology calling for increasing jobs to redress racialized poverty -these are all examples of sociologists using (and sharing) exper�se, rather than sociologists being in a dialogical conversa�on with publics. If it is dialogical, it is only dialogical in the way that that a teacher and a highschool class might involve dialogue, but there is s�ll an unspoken recogni�on that the teacher has the higher authority in the interac�onal chain.

Is critical sociology professional sociology?

To an extent, therefore, some�mes the so-called public are slightly pushed to the background in Burawoy's descrip�on of public sociology. This also happens in the context of Burawoy's division between cri�cal and professional sociology.

As summarised above, cri�cal sociology is defined as sociology which exposes and cri�ques the norma�ve assump�ons built into professional sociology. Again, when giving examples of this cri�cal sociology, Burawoy (2005c) limits himself to the works of (perhaps ironically) professional sociologists, to name a few: Alvin Gouldner, C Wright Mills, Stephen Turner and Jonathan Turner, Irving Louis Horowitz, Stephen Cole, and James Coleman. Of course, Burawoy's focus on such authors makes sense: they each lamented the growing banality of sociology and grand social theorizing, consequently reorien�ng the discipline into more produc�ve areas of social inquiry. Alongside these authors, one could also associate cri�cal sociology with early movements in the US academy from scholars like Du Bois (1898) and Franklin Frazier (1947) , both of whom highlighted how racial stereotypes and confirma�on biases plagued mainstream ethnographic prac�ces (see also Meghji 2022a). As Du Bois (1898:13-14) summarized aptly:

It is so easy for a man who has already formed his conclusions to receive any and all tes�mony in their favor without carefully weighing and tes�ng, it, that we some�mes find in serious scien�fic studies very curious proof of broad conclusions.

Even more recently, sociologists such as Alatas (2003) , Boatcă and Costa (2010), Connell (2007) , Go (2016) , Itzigsohn (2023) , and myself (Meghji 2020) However, by defini�on there is no reason why only professional sociologists can produce cri�cal sociology. As I will expand upon later in this paper, publics -whether that be individuals, social movements, or organiza�ons -can produce sociological insights which challenge the norma�ve assump�ons of mainstream, professional sociology. Despite this possibility, again Burawoy's (2005c) focus on cri�cal sociology largely revolves around the ac�ons of professional sociologists. Indeed, part of Burawoy's provoca�on for critical sociology is that it can become an instrument through which sociologists can orient professional sociology towards public sociology. As Burawoy (2005c:319) contends, cri�cal sociology is needed in order to maintain sociology's outward focus, thus "fostering public sociologies to bolster the organs of civil society". Cri�cal sociology, again, becomes a tool at the disposal of professional sociologists to engage with publics, but it is s�ll portrayed as being a tool which only the university employee can wield.

Public sociology as a gi� to the public: who has a monopoly on the sociological?

Through overviewing Burawoy's early theoriza�ons of public sociology, a "gi�ing model" seems to characterize the overall approach. While theore�cally described as a dialogical exercise, the examples provided to illustrate public sociology all involve the sociologist going into publics, providing exper�se on a given topic, and -overall -providing knowledge from professional sociology into a public sphere. Public sociology therefore becomes a gi� that the sociologist brings from the academy into civil society, rather than being a form of sociological analysis which emerges from dialogical rela�ons. While it is undeniable that many sociologists have an exper�se which can benefit discussions happening in publics -as Burawoy righ�ully highlights -we also need to be cognisant that our approach to public sociology does not only account for the flow of knowledge from academics to publics, but also accounts for the exchange and flow of knowledge from publics to professional sociologists. Without accoun�ng for the two-way flow of knowledge, public sociology is just professional sociology by another name.

Furthermore, without apprecia�ng this dialogical flow of knowledge, we completely lose sight of how mul�ple works in sociology have been formed through professional sociologists listening to, and learning from, wider publics. To list merely a few examples, I think of Karim Murji's (2007) overview of the concept of ins�tu�onal racism -a concept which con�nues to be informa�ve to sociological work and cri�que, but a concept itself which did not originate in the discipline of sociology but rather from the Black power movement. Likewise, I could men�on John Narayan's (2019) work on intercommunalism -a concept which stresses how the world is "hooked up" through the ever-increasing expansion of the US empire -again, this cri�que has come to inform sociology but, as Narayan tracks, stems from Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party's ac�vism. I could men�on Maria Mies' (1986) concept of the house-wifikica�on of labour, used to analyse how capitalism relies on unregulated spheres of produc�on and reproduc�on, itself a concept derived from the Wages for Housework movement. Lastly, I could men�on Priyamvada Gopal's (2019) book Insurgent Empire, where she develops the concept of colonial fascism -a concept used to understand the links between European fascism and colonialism -and how again, this concept shaped sociologists' cri�ques even though it derived from ac�vist groups such as the Interna�onal African Friends of Ethiopia. In other words, there are mul�ple examples of concepts which are essen�al -at least in my view -for sociology, but these concepts derived from outside of professional sociologists' works.

Importantly, part of the reason why Burawoy's account of public sociology implicitly commits to this gi�ing approach, and part of the reason it therefore occludes those more two-way flows of knowledge, is because he conflates between sociology, sociologists, and sociological analysis. Sociology is a discipline that one studies in educa�onal ins�tu�ons, and sociologists are those employed to teach, learn, or do research in this discipline. However, sociological analysis is different. Of course, what cons�tutes proper sociological analysis is itself open to cri�que, but most approaches to defining sociological analysis show how it is not �ed to one's employment status. For the "analy�cal sociologists" who highlight how sociological analysis atempts to explain social phenomena through a focus on social mechanisms (Swedberg 2014) , there is no reason why non-sociologists cannot do such explanatory analysis. For those who emphasise how sociological analysis is analysis which centers social processes (Maines 1979) , structural interpreta�ons (Bonilla-Silva 1997), the logic of prac�ce (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992) , human interac�on (Blumer 1956 ), historical interpreta�on (Hammer 2020) , and so on, all of these defini�ons of sociological analysis necessitate a style of thinking rather than specifying who does the said thinking. As I constantly remind my students, C Wright Mills (1959) didn't call it the sociologist's imagina�on, nor sociology's imagina�on, but the sociological imagina�on. Maybe this sen�ment is best summarised by Les Back (2007:12) when he states that "the difference between a professor and a bus driver is that the professor can say stupid things with complete authority, while the bus driver is not authorized to make brilliant insights".

It is my conten�on that once we admit that publics are capable of -and o�en producesociological insights, we can appreciate more clearly the dynamic through which public sociology is o�en characterized by publics providing cri�cal sociological analyses which can inform professional sociology. It should be noted here that my interpreta�on is connected to, but ul�mately different from, extant cri�ques of Burawoy's theoriza�on of public sociology. Lozano (2018) , for instance, has likewise cri�qued Burawoy's sharp divide between professional sociology and non-specialist publics. For Lozano (2018:102) , Burawoy is said to offer a "narrow no�on of public sociology" which centres the "unidirec�onal flow of knowledge from the academic expert to extra-academic audiences". Following the South African tradi�on of cri�cal engagement (see Bezuidenhout et al 2022), Lozano (2018) calls for a vision of public sociology which is properly dialogical and collabora�ve between professional sociologists and publics. However, the way that Lozano explores these possibili�es for knowledge co-produc�on largely centers on methodological prac�ce, and the organiza�onal arrangements of academia, both of which differ to my focus in this paper.

In terms of methodological prac�ce, Lozano (2018) men�ons their own PhD project about collec�ve ac�on in Spain, and their desire to not do a project on social movements, but rather with social movement ac�vists (some might broadly refer to this as par�cipatory research 3 ). Such a methodological shi� is said to create a proper public sphere, in which different knowledges can be amalgamated through open discourse. Unfortunately, here Lozano (2018) does not offer an illustra�on of how they achieved this methodological commitment in their doctoral research, but they do highlight a per�nent case from South Africa. for so-called informants -who had ac�ve stakes in the research topic and its dissemina�onto become ac�ve in the produc�on of knowledge. Furthermore, this public sociology also entailed a set of organiza�onal commitments on behalf of the university; the University of the Witwatersrand disseminated the findings of this project at a public event in which sociologists, as well as workers and employers in the mining industry, were invited to an open discussion. The project's findings were turned into a pamphlet, translated into two indigenous South African language (isiXhosa and seSotho), and eventually led to an amendment to Sec�on 23 of the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996, which protected the right to refuse to work in dangerous condi�ons (Webster 2022) . This all cons�tutes proper public sociology, Lozano (2018) argues, because 1) it demonstrates a par�cipatory methodological prac�ce in which sociologists and publics work together in the design and implementa�on of the research; 2) the research project raised public awareness about a public issue; and 3) the findings of the research were disseminated beyond academic networks towards wider public stakeholders.

Specifically

While I agree with Lozano's cri�que, the focus of my paper is different. As can be seen, Lozano claims that Burawoy's vision of public sociology does not account for the co-produc�on of knowledge, and then details a specific case in which we see close collabora�on between sociologists and publics (the case of SWOP and the Na�onal Union of Mineworkers). However, in virtue of then describing this "real" public sociology through highligh�ng methodological (par�cipatory methods) and organiza�onal (dissemina�on) prac�ces, Lozano s�ll paints a picture of public sociology as something necessarily �ed to the ac�ons of professional sociologists. Public sociology, here, is s�ll defined by professional sociologists working with publics (albeit in democra�c ways), professional sociologists raising issues of public concern (again, in posi�ve ways for the improvement of society), and professional sociologists dissemina�ng research findings in ways that connect and resonate with public and non-academic stakeholders. Straigh�orwardly, it is the presence of professional sociologists in the public domain which allows for cri�cal public knowledges to evolve into sociological knowledge. Lozano's angle then is quite different to my own interest in this paper, where I am demonstra�ng that public sociology is produced by publics even before they encounter professional sociologists. Moreover, Lozano largely highlights both methodological and organiza�onal prerequisites for public sociology; this highlights how we might foster dialogue between academics and publics, but it does not really focus on the excava�on of public theorizing itself, and how such public theorizing can develop professional sociology (which is the aim of my paper). This leads to another related cri�que of Burawoy that differs to my own. Namely, Cox (2014) has likewise made the argument that theorizing happens in publics outside of professional sociology, o�en in the form of social movements. Similarly to my argument, Cox (2014) thus argues that public sociology happens in publics, and that sociologists can learn from such public theorizing. However, Cox's (2014) demonstra�on of this argument, and overall focus, s�ll remains analy�cally dis�nct to my own. Firstly, Cox (2014) discusses what sociologists and universi�es can do to foster dialogue with publics, such as atending public forums, and crea�ng and publishing in open access journals. While this is certainly important, it is largely a discussion of how to reform the organiza�onal structure of academia -this is not the primary concern of my paper. More importantly, Cox (2014) focuses on how sociologists can learn from the way that movements theorize rather than on the content of movements' theore�cal insights themselves. Thus, Cox (2014) highlights how movements o�en theorize through collabora�ve discussions which include people from diverse perspec�ves and tradi�ons, as you see in the World Social Forum or the Zapa�sta's Encuentros. While Cox (2014) argues that sociologists should embrace this collabora�ve approach to theorizing through public dialogue, he does not discuss the actual theore�cal insights produced by these publics in their dialogue, nor how these specific theore�cal insights can shape professional sociology; this is precisely what my paper analyzes, as is captured in the dynamic "reverse tutelage". I will now spend the rest of the paper defining and analyzing this reverse tutelage approach as it pertains to public sociology.

Towards reverse tutelage in public sociology

Reverse tutelage was a concept evoked by Priyamvada Gopal (2019) to explain a different process to the one being analysed in this paper. Gopal's scope of study was early 20 th century Britain, highligh�ng how members of the Bri�sh le� developed an�-colonial poli�cs and ac�vism through their engagement with intellectuals and radicals who had come to the metropole from the colonies. Here, Gopal (2019:24) uses the concept of reverse tutelage to highlight how "metropolitan dissidents came to learn something from their an�colonial interlocutors and the movements they represented". For Gopal (2019) , this reverse tutelage flips the dominant narra�ve that we see in historical accounts of empire and colonialism; while we are o�en presented with a picture of metropolitan elites giving knowledge to the pre-modern colonized, Gopal's concept of reverse tutelage highlights how the knowledge of the colonized came to shape metropolitan poli�cal ac�vism. Examples of such reverse tutelage include George Padmore and CLR James convincing members of the Bri�sh Le� that the Nazism they were figh�ng was akin to the Bri�sh empire's colonial prac�ces, and the Interna�onal African Friends of Ethiopia convincing key members of the Bri�sh parliament (including Arthur Jones, Ellen Wilkinson, Noel Baker, and Denis Prit) to recognise the links between the infringement of self-determina�on imbued into colonial prac�ces (see Meghji

2021).

I contend that the concept of reverse tutelage can also be applied more generally to public sociology. While public sociology is o�en construed as involving a flow of knowledge from the sociologist to a public, reverse tutelage can explain how public sociology can also involve flows of knowledge from publics to professional sociology. Acknowledging this reverse tutelage forces us to understand that publics can be meaningful sociological interlocutors, and can consequently be meaningful producers of cri�cal sociology and sociological theory(ies).

To an extent, this argument is not par�cularly novel, and it builds upon extant discussions held in sociology. In her Fighting Words, for instance, Patricia Hill Collins (1998:xvi) highlights how oppressed people -regardless of whether or not they are in university posi�onstheorize about their oppression as a requisite for survival; as she summarises (emphasis added):

Despite long-standing claims by elites that Blacks, women, La�nos, and other similar derogated groups in the United States remain incapable of producing the type of interpre�ve, analy�cal thought that is labelled theory in the West, powerful knowledges of resistance that toppled former structures of social inequality repudiate this view. Members of these groups do in fact theorize, and our critical social theory has been central to our political empowerment and search for justice.

For Collins, university status might be a prerequisite for so-called "elite" social theorizing, but it certainly was not a prerequisite for critical social theorizing -that is, social theory proper. Similar points have been made in the an�colonial turn in sociology, where sociologists have pointed out how an�colonial intellectuals -while not employed as sociologists -were theorizing the world in ways which both raised sociological ques�ons, and made sociological contribu�ons. In his recent British Journal of Sociology plenary, for example, Julian Go (2023a) turned to the wri�ngs of figures such as Apolinario Mabini and Jose Rizal in the Philippines, Eugenio Maria de Hostos in Puerto Rico, and Frantz Fanon, Suzanne Cesaire and Aimé Césaire in Mar�nique to show how each of them, in their advoca�ng of an�-colonialism, developed an�colonial social theories -theories which cut to key sociological problems such as the defini�on of society, the rela�onship between culture and economy, and the possibility of social change in social structures which tend to reproduce themselves. Likewise, in Sujata Patel's (2023) recent Anti-colonial thought and global social theory, she highlights how antcolonial social thought, as an analy�cal and philosophical ecosystem of ideas stretching back over 400 years, very much fits the criteria for sociological theorizing in the way that it "maps and interprets ideas and ac�ons that have emerged in the poli�cal struggle(s) of the colonized peoples against capitalist colonialism's material exploita�on, ideologies, and prac�ces" and how it "collates, catalogs, and analyses the subjec�ve experiences of being dominated by colonial and imperial economic, social, poli�cal, and cultural ins�tu�ons, policies, and rules". This historical and growing awareness that sociological theorizing can take place outside of universi�es, o�en coming from the margins of society itself, can help us rethink public sociology. I contend that these examples do not just speak to the existence of "sociological theorizing outside the academy", but more simply speak to the existence of public sociology -sociological theorizing that develops in (counter)publics that can inform professional sociology.

With this in mind, I move to the final substan�ve part of my paper to highlight how reverse tutelage and public sociology can work. Star�ng with a focus on the Zapa�stas, formed in Chiapas (Mexico), I highlight how an an�colonial public produced a social theory of neoliberalism that orients professional sociology towards (re)considering neoliberalism's alterna�ves, that encourages sociologists to analyse power through focal points of resistance, and that encourages sociologists to build connectors between different social groups rather than forcefully imposing a universal. I then briefly turn to consider an�-racist publics who have built connectors with one another across regions: Black Lives Mater in the US, Pales�ne Ac�on in the UK, and Cops are Flops in South Africa, to highlight how -through building connec�ons between each other's struggles -they help orient professional sociology towards rela�onal understandings of racializa�on and racism 4 .

Theorizing from the margins: the Zapa�stas and the fourth world war

In professional sociology, we have referred to neoliberalism as a theory of poli�cal economy (Harvey 2007a) , as a market-based doctrine of complete financializa�on (Harvey 2007b) , as a stage of capitalism (Chang 2008; Larner 2003) , and as an economic embodiment of individualism (Hall 2017) . By contrast, the Zapa�stas define neoliberalism as a fourth world war waged on humanity.

The Zapa�stas are a largely indigenous-led group formed in Eastern Chiapas, Mexico, in 1994, as a response to Mexico's project of land seizure and neoliberal economic policies 5 .

While they emerged as a response to the na�onal policies of Mexico, their comments on neoliberalism as a fourth world war demonstrate the interna�onal scope of their social thought. Central to the Zapa�stas' theory, as explicated by Subcomondante Marcos (1997) in his speech The Fourth World War Has Begun, is that this world war involves seven components: the two-fold accumula�on of wealth and of poverty (in other words, the elite ge�ng more wealth is inherently connected to the growing impoverishment of others, see This social theory was further spelled out in the First Intercon�nental mee�ng that the Zapa�stas organized in 1996, For Humanity and Against Neoliberalism, where thousands of people across the world gathered in Chiapas 6 . Within this mee�ng, the Zapa�stas shared with everyone that they were all part of a connected struggle: a struggle for humanity in a context where the global system of neoliberalism was dehumanizing millions of subalternized people. As the Zapa�stas declared in the final remarks at this mee�ng (Marcos 2002:117 , emphasis added):

[…] millions of women, millions of youths, millions of Indigenous, millions of homosexuals, millions of human beings of all races and colors only par�cipate in the financial markets as a devalued currency worth always less and less, the currency of their blood making profits […] The globaliza�on of markets is erasing borders for specula�on and crime and mul�plying them for human beings. Countries are obligated to erase their na�onal borders when it comes to the circula�on of money but to mul�ply their internal borders […] National governments are turned into the military underlings of a new world war against humanity.

Again, we see the development of the Zapa�stas sociological analysis and theory. Here, they con�nue drawing connec�ons between financial markets and economic growth with the process of dehumaniza�on, but unlike professional sociological theories which held that neoliberalism highlighted the power of corpora�ons and the market over the na�on state (Giroux 2005) , the Zapa�stas develop an understanding of na�onal governments as enforcers of neoliberal dehumaniza�on -that is, as local enactors of global designs (Mignolo 2000) .

Importantly, in developing this sociological theory of neoliberalism, what we see is that the Zapa�stas are also theorizing about power, knowledge, poli�cal economy, history, translocalism, and so much more. The Foucauldian ([1976]1990 ) aphorism that so many of our students of social theory are familiar with -that where there is power there is resistance -is precisely the point spelled out by the Zapa�stas when they describe neoliberalism as a war on humanity and the planet, and also an historical moment in which peripheralized groups across the world dehumanized by neoliberalism are waging their own struggles against it. In such analysis, the Zapa�stas thus offer professional sociology an agenda similar to the Foucauldian approach -to study power at its points of resistance(s), and to understand the mul�plici�es of resistance that can emerge in a totalizing structure of exploita�on.

The Zapa�stas expand upon this focus on resistance to neoliberalism in their 2021 Declara�on for Life 7 . Here, they emphasize that different groups struggling against problems engendered by neoliberalism can build connec�ons with each other, coming together to defend human existence. Furthermore, through stressing the connec�ons that can exist between different forms of resistance, the Zapa�stas' social theory highlights how neoliberalism is not a poli�cal economic structure that can be replaced with a beter poli�cal economy. Rather, the Zapa�stas posit that neoliberalism's alterna�ve is not socialism, or communism, or a green new deal, but dignity and life itself; the struggles which are happening across the world against neoliberalism are centred around these quests for dignity and flourishment. As they state in the seven points of their Declara�on for Life, resistance to neoliberalism thus involves both building connec�ons across difference, and recognising the way these resistances are �ed together in a "fight for humanity":

1. That we make the pains of the earth our own: violence against women; persecu�on and contempt of those who are different in their affec�ve, emo�onal, and sexual iden�ty; annihila�on of childhood; genocide against the na�ve peoples; racism; militarism; exploita�on; dispossession; the destruc�on of nature.

2. The understanding that a system is responsible for these pains. The execu�oner is an exploita�ve, patriarchal, pyramidal, racist, thievish and criminal system: capitalism.

3.

The knowledge that it is not possible to reform this system, to educate it, to atenuate it, to so�en it, to domes�cate it, to humanize it.

4. The commitment to fight, everywhere and at all �mes -each and everyone on their own terrain -against this system un�l we destroy it completely. The survival of humanity depends on the destruc�on of capitalism. We do not surrender, we do not sell out, and we not give up.

5. The certainty that the fight for humanity is global. Just as the ongoing destruc�on does not recognize borders, na�onali�es, flags, languages, cultures, races; so the fight for humanity is everywhere, all the �me. 6. The convic�on that there are many worlds that live and fight within the world. And that any pretence of homogeneity and hegemony threatens the essence of the human being: freedom. The equality of humanity lies in the respect for difference. In its diversity resides its likeness.

7.

The understanding that what allows us to move forward is not the inten�on to impose our gaze, our steps, companies, paths and des�na�ons. What allows us to move forward is the listening to and the observa�on of the Other that, dis�nct and different, has the same voca�on of freedom and jus�ce.

It must be noted that we are not here just reviewing a group's organiza�onal commitments, we are s�ll discussing a public sociology that can influence professional sociology.

Furthermore, these contribu�ons to professional sociology here are not just realized through the Zapa�stas' understanding of neoliberalism and resistance to neoliberalism, but are also seen in the very way that the Zapa�stas talk about the philosophy of social analysis itself. In their Declara�on for Life, we see a philosophy in which we converge the fields of ethics and epistemology into the same analy�cal plain. Ethics and epistemology are converged here because we see a prac�cal commitment from the Zapa�stas to not universalize one's view of the world but instead to recognise: "that there are many worlds that live and fight within the world" -and that the aim is not to "impose our gaze, our steps, companies, paths and des�na�ons" onto others, but instead to work horizontally with others struggling for freedom and jus�ce. As the Zapa�stas declare, the aim is to build connec�ons between struggles, rather than homogenize acts of resistance, and without these connectors we are unable to progress: "what allows us to move forward is the listening to and the observa�on of the Other that, dis�nct and different, has the same voca�on of freedom and jus�ce".

Developing this philosophy of social analysis, the Zapa�stas also go a step further in the way they show that the very act of building "connectors" between different struggles itself is an act which necessarily involves, or indeed cons�tutes, sociological theorizing. Put more plainly, building connec�ons between struggles is a site of sociological analysis. It involves sociological theorizing because it necessitates that we understand the mechanisms or processes by which events or struggles happening across different space or �mescapes relate to one another in a non-hierarchical way, they necessitate us to analyse how a given social structure can stretch across �me and space, perhaps even evolving or muta�ng in this stretching. I will now quickly turn to some concrete examples of this "connec�on building as sociological theorizing", before moving to a conclusion.

Theorizing through connec�ng: from BLM to Cops are Flops and Pales�ne Ac�on

The idea that building connec�ons between resistances necessitates (and cons�tutes) sociological analysis again can be demonstrated historically in professional sociology, as well as through a considera�on of contemporary resistance movements. In professional sociology, the no�on of "connec�ng as sociological theorizing" could, to an extent, simply be summarised as the whole ethic of compara�ve sociology (Suzuki 2017) . Indeed, David Theo Goldberg's (2015) provoca�on for a rela�onal racisms approach also summarises the ethic I am excava�ng. Here, Goldberg (2015:257 ) calls upon sociologists to analyze on a broad level how "movement in one place ripples through impacts in another, and how structures at one �me are taken up and put to work in another elsewhere", and specifically upon race scholars to thus analyze how "racial ideas, meanings and exclusionary repressive prac�ces in one place are influenced, shaped by and fuel those elsewhere" (Goldberg 2015:254) . For scholars in professional sociology, like Goldberg, finding those rela�ons that exist between disparate racial (or an�-racist) projects becomes both a focal point of sociological analysis, and a space in which sociological cri�que is born. Nevertheless, as Goldberg (2015) comments, this call for a rela�onal racisms program has not properly taken off in the professional sociology of race, where scholars s�ll remain commited to largely state-centric theore�cal paradigms (see also Meghji 2023) . Again, this pushes us towards thinking about the chasms, and possible influence, between public sociology and professional sociology, given that there are many publics which stress the importance of rela�onal models of thinking (par�cularly in the area of race and racializa�on). Thinking about these publics as meaningful producers of cri�cal sociology can help refine and bolster peripheral movements in professional sociology.

Consider, for example, the recent ac�vism from Pales�ne Ac�on in Britain centred around disrup�ng the private military and security firm, Elbit Systems' factories (see Turner 2022) .

On the one hand, this group's ac�ons are addressing the direct circumstances of occupied Pales�nians, and working toward their libera�on, but on the other hand they are also drawing connec�ons that therefore exist between the prac�ces of the Israeli state, the wider commercialisa�on of military technology under neoliberalism, and the connec�ons between militariza�on and border control. This is because Elbit Systems are not just connected to the Israeli state, but are part of a much wider, global flow of capital, miliatriza�on, and bordering: Britain's Mari�me and Coastguard Agency (MCA) have contracted Elbit Systems UK to protect the border from so-called illegal migra�on, Elbit systems also provide military equipment to the EU in the form of drones to patrol the border in the Mediterranean, and have fi�y-five fixed towers in Southern Arizona to "protect" the US border (Meghji 2023) . On the theme of the US and the EU, the US -through the FBI and military bases -as well as the EU, via its border agency Frontex, provide military and border technologies in Niger to prevent migrants from Chad moving to Nigeria where mobility to the EU and US becomes easier. Just South of Niger, in Nigeria, since 2013, Elbit also have contract with Nigerian government to spy on "radical" le�-wing ac�vists. So, when Pales�ne Ac�on take direct ac�on against Elbit Systems, we see social theorizing through their actions and practical activities, as they show the inherent connec�ons that exist between various social processes and projects of exploita�on across a wide variety of state projects, geopoli�cal regions, and racial projects.

Indeed, caught in this public theorizing/ac�vism is also a recogni�on that there are links between the militariza�on, securitza�on, and financializa�on of external borders with the regula�on of na�onal internal borders. In other words, the carceral technologies which racial projects rely upon to protect the na�on state from racialized forms of migra�on are inherently connected to the racialized prac�ces they develop in the na�on's core. Indeed, this was the aforemen�oned point made in 1996 by the Zapa�stas when they noted a paradox in neoliberalism, that "Countries [or na�on states] are obligated to erase their na�onal borders when it comes to the circula�on of money but to multiply their internal borders […] Na�onal governments are turned into the military underlings of a new world war against humanity". As pinpointed by movements such as the Zapa�stas, and Pales�ne Ac�on, there are direct links between increasing militariza�on of external borders with the increasing carceral logics deployed to those within the na�on state. Again, this public theorizing sets an agenda for professional sociology in the way that it encourages us to bring together sociological subfields which o�en remain bifurcated from one another -such as migra�on studies and the sociology of race -into the same analy�cal plain 8 . Further clarifying this with a final example, before moving toward my conclusion, I will briefly remark on how this was displayed in the Black Lives Mater protests over the past ten years.

As explicated by Angela Davis (2016:83) , since 2014 Black Lives Mater (BLM) "has become synonymous with progressive protest from Pales�ne to South Africa, from Syria to Germany, and Brazil to Australia". However, as Davis clarifies, BLM was not just becoming synonymous to progressive protest across the world, but was also drawing rela�ons between the US' internal systemic racism with racial projects elsewhere Consider, for instance, Davis' (2016:139-40) Pales�nian ac�vists no�ced from the images they saw on social media and on television that tear-gas canisters that were being used in Ferguson were exactly the same tear-gas canisters that were used against them in occupied Pales�ne. As a mater of fact, a US company, which is called Combined Systems, Incorporated, stamps "CTS" (Combined Tac�cal Systems) on their tear-gas canisters. When Pales�nian ac�vists no�ced these canisters in Ferguson, what they did was to tweet advice to Ferguson protesters on how to deal with the tear gas […] There was a whole series of really interes�ng comments for the young ac�vists in Ferguson, who were probably confron�ng tear gas for the first �me in their lives.

Expanding on this example, Davis (2016:140) thus comments on the "connec�ons between the militariza�on of the police in the US" and the "ongoing prolifera�on of racist police violence, and the con�nuous assault on people in occupied Pales�ne". Recognising these links, BLM started sending delegates to Lebanon since 2015 to work with Pales�nian ac�vists, later reitera�ng their support for Pales�nian libera�on in 2020 in the a�ermath of George Floyd's death. This focus on the links between US racism and setler colonialism in Pales�ne led BLM to focus on, among many things, the sending of police officers in the US to learn from the Israeli military, via organiza�ons such as the an�-defama�on league.

Thinking beyond the example of Pales�ne, we can consider how the murder of George Floyd in 2020 also inspired movements for police aboli�on outside of the context of the US. Cops are Flops (2020) in South Africa, for example, collated resources for a report Reimagining Justice in South Africa beyond Policing. In this report, they saw their analysis of police violence, and profitable carcerality, not as an atempt to project a US reality onto South Africa, but rather as a form of analysis which stresses that they were "fundamentally having the same conversa�on" as in the US. The organiza�on highlighted how, for instance, the South African police used similar techniques of policing and violence as seen in the US, as well as highligh�ng how the South African police had burgeoning municipal powers similar to those seen in the US Southern states. Authors like Davis, Dent, Meiners and Richie (2022), consequently highlight how movements like Cops are Flops stress that what happens in the US is about the US, but is also part of a much wider global conversa�on of carcerality, racist policing, and struggles for aboli�on. Again, it would be prudent to construe such movements -like BLM and Cops are Flops -as having a lot to teach professional sociology: the way that they transcend na�onal myopia and directly look for links with other racial (and an�-racist) projects elsewhere advocates precisely for the forms of rela�onal analysis that scholars like Goldberg tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to develop in professional sociology.

Moreover, a cursory examina�on of the theory produc�on of these an�-racist movements also highlights their ability to challenge the burgeoning presen�sm within the sociology of race. As documented by authors such as Magubane (2013) , Go (2018) , and myself (Meghji 2022b) among others, especially American sociology of race in the 21 st century has latently commited to a presen�sm which focuses on theorizing aspects of structural racism outside of their historical roots in coloniza�on and enslavement. This is par�cularly apparent in the cri�cal race itera�on of sociology, where the central mission, as ar�culated by Bonilla-Silva (2015:74) is to study the "contemporary founda�on" of racial inequality turning analysis away from "the sins [of the] past (e.g., slavery, coloniza�on, and genocide)". Alongside this cri�cal race approach, popular theories such as racial forma�on theory (Omi and Winant 2015) encourage sociologists to divide the history of race (in America) into discrete racial forma�ons, rather than to think about the undercurrents which have temporally travelled through successive periods. By explicit contrast, movements like Cops are Flops directly stress the temporal connec�ons between present and past racist prac�ces. In their aforemen�oned pamphlet on aboli�on, for example, they engage in a historical excava�on of policing in South Africa and the United States. In such analysis, Cops are Flops (2020) highlight how policing in colonial America began as a private for-profit organiza�on, crea�ng a link between capital, racism, and policing which remains interconnected in the present (see also Go 2023b). Likewise, they highlight how South African policing also has a colonial history, where the South African Mounted Riflemen were essen�ally militarized armies who were given policing du�es within Black neighbourhoods, again crea�ng links between policing and racializa�on which pertain today (Cops are Flops 2020). Thus, to come back to the crux of this paper, apprecia�ng publics as producing sociological theory that can inform professional sociology is once again seen here, where Cops are Flops are not just highligh�ng the importance for a relational approach to race, but are also highligh�ng the importance for professional sociologists to adopt an historical sensibility to understand racism and racializa�on.

Importantly, through highligh�ng these select examples of (counter)public social theorizing, my paper helps us to develop extant cri�ques of Burawoy's model of public sociology.

Namely, while scholars such as Lozano (2018) and Cox (2014) have highlighted the need for sociologists to learn from (or with) publics, their focus has tended to be on methodological and organiza�onal prac�ces. This means that they have tended to highlight the importance of par�cipatory research methods for public sociology, also stressing the need for fundamental shi�s in the academy towards open access publica�ons, suppor�ng public fora, and dissemina�ng knowledge in ways which include and connect various public stakeholders. Extant cri�ques offered by Lozano (2018) and Cox (2014) thus clearly show us how we can make professional sociology more dialogical with publics (and thus create forms of public sociology in line with Burawoy's original defini�on). However, while recognizing publics as sociological interlocutors, these extant approaches do not explicitly set out to excavate the actual social theories produced by different publics, and neither do they therefore highlight how such social theories produced by publics can address, cri�que, and inform shortcomings in professional sociology. It is this excava�on of public theorizing, and its importance to professional sociology, which is more salient in my approach to public sociology outlined in this paper.

Rethinking public sociology

Moving to a conclusion, I like to think that this paper raises a series of rhetorical ques�ons: are movements like Cops are Flops, BLM and Pales�nian ac�vists not social theorizing when they see and draw connec�ons between their respec�ve struggles? Were Pales�ne ac�on in Britain not being sociological or doing sociology when they saw a connec�ons between occupa�on, militariza�on, police violence, and imperial bordering? Were Cops are Flops not being sociological when they construed the fight for aboli�on in South Africa as being "fundamentally the same conversa�on" as the fight for aboli�on in the US? Were BLM ac�vists not being sociological when they no�ced that the police resistance to their protests involved the use of technology being used in the US and other private military firms in other regions of the world? Were the Zapa�stas not being sociological in their cri�que of neoliberalism as a fourth world war, or when they advocated for forms of rela�onal social analysis that bridged the fields of ethics and epistemology? Why do we o�en struggle to see these solidarity or connec�ng-building movements as being sociological, but we are happy to declare them as radical or ac�vist? Is it because they are doing sociology and letting sociology inform their practical actions, while we may be teaching for example, sociology and aboli�on in the classrooms but not standing against our university's own carceral policies? In asking those ques�ons, I want to just highlight that in the last stage of this paper, I don't construe myself as having moved away from the issue of sociology, sociological analyses, and social theorizing. I believe these are all examples of publics doing sociological work despite not necessarily being university students or professors; and this brings me back to the central crux of this paper. Nevertheless, one can ques�on whether the understanding of public sociology which has been mainstreamed since the early 2000s has sufficiently incorporated the wide range of (public) sociological interlocutors across the social universe. It s�ll seems as though public sociology is o�en construed as being a gi� that the professional sociologist can share with wider publics, rather than being a dialogical exchange of ideas (as Burawoy ini�ally theorized), or a case of the public themselves being the primary producer of sociological thought and analysis. To this extent, public sociology is essen�ally a tool in the repertoire of the professional sociologist. Burawoy, to an extent, goes as far when he first commented that "there can be neither policy nor public sociology without a professional sociology" (2005a:10), and more recently in his assessment that "public sociology is accountable to the field of professional sociology, to its scien�fic norms, and its accumula�ng body of research" (2023:20).

In contrast to this ironically professionalized vision of public sociology, I have proposed an understanding of public sociology more so based around the premise of reverse tutelage. In thinking about public sociology as primarily a gi� of the professional sociologist to wider publics, we forget how professional sociologists do not themselves have a monopoly on the sociological. Publics can, and o�en do, think sociologically, producing meaningful, cri�cal sociological insights and theories in the process of doing so. As I highlighted with a handful of cases, covering the Zapa�stas, Pales�ne Ac�on, BLM, and Cops are Flops, various publics have put forward interes�ng sociological analyses that can help inform professional sociology. The Zapa�stas put forward a cri�que of neoliberalism that orients professional sociology towards the methodological considera�on to study power through its points of resistance, and they highlighted the importance of social analysis to build connec�ons and rela�ons between different points of resistance. Taking this rela�onal model, groups like Pales�ne Ac�on, BLM, and Cops are Flops demonstrated the need for professional sociology to consider more systema�cally the links that exist between different racial and an�-racist projects across geopoli�cal regions, given that they are o�en struggling against different expressions of interconnected racialized processes and flows of meanings and prac�ces.

All these moments of public theorizing cons�tute reverse tutelage because they demonstrate how professional sociology does not always have all of the answers, and professional sociology is not always on the most cri�cal of routes. Scholars like Burawoy are completely accurate in their assessment that critical sociology can help reorient professional sociology onto beter pathways, but why should we think that only professional sociologists can produce cri�cal sociology? Reverse tutelage helps us transcend this posi�on by highligh�ng how publics, in many cases, ought to be considered alongside professional sociologists as producers of meaningful cri�cal sociology. Indeed, as caught in the premise of reverse tutelage, in many cases we -as professional sociologists -would do much beter if we were to listen to, and learn from, the sociological theorizing of publics. I will finish this paper by commen�ng that this call for professional sociologists to listen to wider publics does not advocate for a 'death of professional sociology'. Since its incep�on as a discipline, sociology has long recognized that professional sociologists do not have a monopoly over sociological analysis. Indeed, as Connell (1997) pointed out in 1997, the very 'origin story' we teach of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, demonstrates that sociologists are happy to admit that many non-sociologists profoundly shaped the discipline. Furthermore, as signalled through the development of qualita�ve sociology led by Du Bois (1898), one significant reason why qualita�ve sociology became mainstreamed was because of the recogni�on that non-professional sociologists o�en produced meaningful insights about the world which could be incorporated into sociological theories (see also Anderson 2011; Sinha and Back 2014) . Sociological knowledge does not just get produced by professional sociologists. Public sociology, in this case, ought to also be understood as the process by which publics produce meaningful sociological theories and analyses. Incorpora�ng these sociological insights into professional sociology through what I have labelled reverse tutelage will, in many cases, just make professional sociology stronger, and -in hope -more sociological.

References

1. Benjamin Abrams The Rise of the Masses: Spontaneous Mobilization and Contentious Politics Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press 2023
2. Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences Syed Alatas Farid 10.1177/00113921030516003 Current Sociology 51 6 2003
3. Standards of Public Sociology: Guidelines for Use by Academic Departments in Personnel Review American Sociological Associa�on 2007
4. Elijah Anderson The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life New York W. W. Norton & Company 2011
5. Les Back, The Art of Listening. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2007. £19.99. 210 pp Les Back 10.1177/02673231080230020517 European Journal of Communication European Journal of Communication 0267-3231 1460-3705 23 2 2007 SAGE Publications Oxford, UK; Berg
6. Introduc�on: Cri�cal Engagement in South Africa and the Global South Andries Bezuidenhout Sonwabile Mnwana Karl Von Holdt Critical Engagement with Public Sociology: A Perspective from the Global South A Bezuidenhout S Mnwana K Holdt Bristol UK Policy Press 2022
7. Public Sociology: A Perspec�ve on the Move Lavinia Bifulco Vando Borghi L. Bifulco and V. Borghi 2023 Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK
8. Sociological Analysis and the 'Variable Herbert Blumer 10.2307/2088418 American Sociological Review 21 6 1956
9. Thinking Europe Otherwise: Lessons from the Caribbean Manuela Boatcă 10.1177/0011392120931139 Current Sociology 69 3 2021
10. Manuela Boatcă Sérgio Costa Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary approaches M Boatca S Costa E G Rodriguez Surrey, UK Ashgate 2010 Postcolonial Sociology: A Research Agenda
11. Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpreta�on Eduardo Bonilla-Silva 10.2307/2657316 American Sociological Review 62 3 1997
12. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva 10.1177/2332649214557042 More than Prejudice: Restatement, Reflec�ons, and New Direc�ons in Cri�cal Race Theory 2015 1
13. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology Pierre Bourdieu Loïc Wacquant 1992 Polity Cambridge, UK
14. Augustus Granville Dill: A Case Study in the Conceptualiza�on of a Black Public Sociology Marcus A Brooks Earl Wright 10.1177/2332649220942253 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 7 3 2021
15. Michael Burawoy 10.1177/000312240507000102 American Sociological Review 70 1 2005 For Public Sociology
16. The Return of the Repressed: Recovering the Public Face of U.S. Sociology, One Hundred Years On Michael Burawoy The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600 2005
17. Michael Burawoy 10.1163/1569163053946291 The Cri�cal Turn to Public Sociology 2005 31
18. The State of US Sociology: From Crisis to Renewal Michael Burawoy 10.1177/08969205211069419 Critical Sociology 48 2 2022a
19. Walking on Two Legs: Black Marxism and the Sociological Canon Michael Burawoy 10.1177/08969205221085641 Critical Sociology 48 4-5 2022
20. Michael Burawoy W.E.B. Du Bois as Public Sociologist Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto -Ins�tuto de Sociologia da Universidade do Porto
21. Why Public Sociology? Michael Burawoy L. Bifulco and V. Borghi 2023 Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK
22. Introduc�on: Laboring in the Extrac�ve University Michael Burawoy Margaret Eby Thomas Gepts Jus�n Germain Natalie Pasquinelli Elizabeth Torres Carpio 10.1177/07308884231177882 Work and Occupations 2023
23. Bad Samaritans: The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations and the Threat to Global Prosperity Ha-Joon Chang 2008 London, UK Random House
24. Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought Patricia Collins Hill 10.2307/800672 Social Problems 33 6 1986
25. Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice Patricia Collins Hill 1998 University Of Minnesota Press Minneapolis, MN
26. Why Is Classical Theory Classical? R W Connell 10.1086/231125 American Journal of Sociology 102 6 1997
27. Raewyn Connell Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science Cambridge, UK Polity 2007
28. Reimagining Social Justice Scholarship Tamara Shefer 0000-0002-1201-8043 Carmine Rustin 0000-0002-6245-7626 Floretta Boonzaier 0000-0001-7540-4534 10.4324/9781003514893 Cops are Flops South Africa Routledge 2020
29. Movements Making Knowledge: A New Wave of Inspiration for Sociology? Laurence Cox 10.1177/0038038514539063 Sociology Sociology 0038-0385 1469-8684 48 5 2014 SAGE Publications
30. Angela Y Davis Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement New York Haymarket Books 2016
31. Angela Y Davis Gina Dent Erica Meiners Beth Richie Abolition. Feminism. Now 2022 Penguin New York
32. Climate Change and Society Thomas Dietz Rachael L Shwom Cameron T Whitley 10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054614 Annual Review of Sociology Annu. Rev. Sociol. 0360-0572 1545-2115 46 1 2020 Annual Reviews
33. The Study of the Negro Problems Du Bois W E Burghardt The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 11 1898
34. The early beginnings of the Pan-African movement Du Bois W E B 1958 Special Collec�ons and University Archives, University of Massachusets Amherst Libraries W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312
35. Du Bois W E B The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study New York Schocken Books 1899. 1967
36. Du Bois W E B The Souls of Black Folk New York Oxford University Press 1903. 2007
37. Du Bois W E Burghardt The Oxford W E B Bois An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880 New York Oxford University Press 1935. 2014 Black Reconstruction in America
38. Du Bois W E B Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept New York Oxford University Press 1940. 2007
39. Du Bois W E B The World and Africa: An Inquiry Into the Part Which Africa Has Played in World History and Color and Democracy New York Oxford University Pres 1947. 2007
40. Michel Foucault The History of Sexuality: An Introduction New York Vintage 1990. 1976 1
41. Sociological Theory and Race Rela�ons E Frazier Franklin 10.2307/2086515 American Sociological Review 12 3 265 1947
42. Public Sociology and Its Publics Herbert J Gans The American Sociologist 47 1 2016
43. The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the Significance of Cultural Poli�cs Henry A Giroux College Literature 32 1 2005
44. Julian Go Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory New York Oxford University Press 2016
45. Postcolonial Possibili�es for the Sociology of Race Julian Go 10.1177/2332649218793982 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 4 4 2018
46. Thinking against Empire: An�colonial Thought as Social Theory Julian Go 10.1111/1468-4446.12993 The British Journal of Sociology 74 3 2023
47. Julian Go Policing Empires: Militarization, Race, and the Imperial Boomerang in Britain and the US New York Oxford University Press 2023
48. Racial Comparisons, Rela�onal Racisms: Some Thoughts on Method David Goldberg Theo Theories of Race and Ethnicity: Contemporary Debates and Perspectives K Murji J Solomos Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 2015
49. Insurgent Empire: Anticolonialism and the Making of British Dissent Priyamvada Gopal 2019 Verso Books London, UK
50. Selected Political Writings Stuart Hall 10.2307/j.ctv1220h4g S. Davison, D. Featherstone, M. Rus�n, and B. Schwarz 2017 Duke University Press London, UK
51. Decolonizing the Civil Sphere: The Poli�cs of Difference, Imperial Erasures, and Theorizing from History Ricarda Hammer 10.1177/0735275120921215 Sociological Theory 38 2 2020
52. 2007a. A Brief History of Neoliberalism David Harvey Oxford University Press New York
53. Neoliberalism as Crea�ve Destruc�on David Harvey The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 610 2007
54. Decolonizing Migra�on Studies: A Du Boisian/Decolonial Perspec�ve José Itzigsohn 10.1111/socf.12914 Sociological Forum 38 3 2023
55. Joyce A Ladner The Death of White Sociology: Essays on Race and Culture Bal�more, MD Black Classic Press 1973
56. Wendy Larner 10.1068/d2105ed Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21 5 2003
57. Replacing "Race", Historicizing "Culture" in Mul�culturalism Alana Len�n 10.1080/00313220500347832 Patterns of Prejudice 39 4 2005
58. Detain and Punish: Haitian Refugees and the Rise of the World's Largest Immigration Detention System Carl Lindskoog 2019 University of Florida Press Miami, FL
59. Reframing the Public Sociology Debate: Towards Collabora�ve and Decolonial Praxis Alberto Lozano Arribas 10.1177/0011392117715897 Current Sociology 66 1 2018
60. Mesostructure and Social Process David R Maines 10.2307/2065132 Contemporary Sociology A Strauss 8 4 1979
61. Zine Magubane Common Skies and Divided Horizons? Sociology, Race, and Postcolonial Studies 2013 24
62. Our Word is Our Weapon Subcomandante Marcos 10.5040/9798216428046.ch-037 2002 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. New York
63. La�n American Decolonial Feminisms: Theore�cal Perspec�ves and Challenges Mar�nez-Cairo Emanuela Bárbara Buscemi 10.4000/alhim.10153 Amérique Latine Histoire et Mémoire. Les Cahiers ALHIM. Les Cahiers ALHIM 42 2021
64. Decolonizing Sociology: An Introduction Ali Meghji 2020 Polity Cambridge, UK
65. Ali Meghji The Racialized Social System: Critical Race Theory as Social Theory Cambridge, UK Polity 2022
66. Towards a Theore�cal Synergy: Cri�cal Race Theory and Decolonial Thought in Trumpamerica and Brexit Britain Ali Meghji 10.1177/0011392120969764 Current Sociology 70 5 2022
67. Ali Meghji A Critical Synergy: Race, Decoloniality, and World Crises Philadelphia, PA Temple University Press 2023
68. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour Maria Mies 1986 Zed London, UK
69. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking Walter D Mignolo 2000 Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ
70. C Mills Wright 1959 Oxford University Press New York
71. Reactionary Democracy: How Racism and the Populist Far Right Became Mainstream Aurelien Mondon Aaron Winter 2020 Verso Books London, UK
72. Mariana Mora Kuxlejal Politics: Indigenous Autonomy, Race, and Decolonizing Research in Zapatista Communities. Aus�n TEX: University of Texas Press 2017
73. Aldon Morris The Scholar Denied: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Birth of Modern Sociology Berkeley, CA University of California Press 2017
74. Sociological Engagements: Ins�tu�onal Racism and Beyond Karim Murji 10.1177/0038038507080440 Sociology 41 5 2007
75. Huey P. Newton's Intercommunalism: An Unacknowledged Theory of Empire John Narayan 10.1177/0263276417741348 Theory, Culture & Society 36 3 2019
76. Racial Formation in the United States Michael Omi Howard Winant 2015 Routledge New York
77. An�-Colonial Thought and Global Social Theory Sujata Patel Frontiers in Sociology 8 2023
78. Pragma�sm as Problem Solving Monica Prasad 10.1177/2378023121993991 Socius 7 2378023121993991 2021
79. The Return of Inequality: Social Change and the Weight of the Past Mike Savage 2021 Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA
80. Making Methods Sociable: Dialogue, Ethics and Authorship in Qualita�ve Research Shamser Sinha Les Back 10.1177/1468794113490717 Qualitative Research 14 4 2014
81. The Rela�onal Public Paul Starr 10.1177/07352751211004660 Sociological Theory 39 2 2021
82. The Fourth World War Has Begun Marcos Subcomandante 1997 Le Monde Diplomatique
83. Kazuko Suzuki 10.1177/2332649217708580 A Cri�cal Assessment of Compara�ve Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2017 3
84. The Art of Social Theory Richard Swedberg 2014 Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ
85. Disrup�ng Coloniality Through Pales�ne Solidarity: Decolonising or Decolonial Praxis? Kieron Turner 2022 Interfere (3
86. Choosing Sides: The Promise and Pi�alls of a Cri�cally Engaged Sociology in Apartheid South Africa Edward Webster in Critical Engagement with Public Sociology: A Perspective from the Global South A Bezuidenhout S Mnwana K Holdt Bristol, UK Policy Press 2022
87. The Atlanta Sociological Laboratory 1896-1924: A Historical Account of the First American School of Sociology I I Wright Earl The Western Journal of Black Studies 26 3 2002
88. Public Sociology, with Gary Younge Gary Younge Chantelle Lewis Cecilia Menjívar Michaela Benson The Sociological Review podcast Chantelle Lewis Cecilia Menjívar Michaela Benson 2023