This qualitative study explores how sociology is legitimated among established Finnish and Swedish sociology professors, who are conceived as a scientific elite. Drawing on a Bourdieusian framework, the analysis traces the discourses that define legitimate sociology in these two national contexts, and the relations between those discourses. While the scientific elite of Finnish and Swedish sociology share four discourses – the Excellence, Humboldtian, Emancipatory and Policy discourses – the relative value of each differs between the different national contexts. The Excellence discourse dominates in the Finnish data, while the Humboldtian discourse is dominant in the Swedish data. The emphases on the other two discourses also vary: in Finnish interviews, the Policy discourse holds a strong position, while the Emancipatory discourse is articulated only with nostalgia; in Swedish interviews, the Emancipatory discourse is strong and the Policy discourse is weak. The results show that different national contexts produce variations in sociology’s internal dynamics.

中文翻译：

---

什么才算是“好的社会学”？芬兰和瑞典关于合法社会学的争论

这项定性研究探讨了社会学如何在被视为科学精英的芬兰和瑞典社会学教授中得到认可。该分析利用布迪厄斯的框架，追溯了在这两个国家背景下定义合法社会学的话语，以及这些话语之间的关系。虽然芬兰和瑞典社会学的科学精英共享四种话语——卓越、洪堡、解放和政策话语——但每种话语的相对价值在不同的国家背景下有所不同。卓越话语在芬兰数据中占主导地位，而洪堡话语在瑞典数据中占主导地位。对另外两种话语的侧重点也各不相同：在芬兰的采访中，政策话语占据了强势地位，而解放的话语只表达了怀旧之情；在瑞典语采访中，解放话语强而政策话语弱。结果表明，不同的国家背景会导致社会学内部动力的变化。