Introduction

The ideal of value-neutrality has long occupied a central place in social science methodology. From classical sociology to contemporary research, scholars have debated whether the social sciences can—or should—remain detached from values while studying society. This question becomes especially pressing in polarised societies, where ideological, political, religious, and cultural divisions deeply shape public discourse. In such contexts, social realities are contested, identities are politicised, and knowledge itself becomes a site of struggle. Sociology, as a discipline committed to understanding social life, must therefore confront a critical dilemma: Is value-neutral social science possible, or even desirable, in polarised societies?

Understanding Value-Neutrality in Social Sciences

The notion of value-neutrality is most famously associated with Max Weber, who argued that while researchers’ values influence the choice of research topics, the analysis itself should remain objective and free from personal moral judgments. Weber distinguished between value-relevance (selecting what to study) and value-neutrality (how one studies it).
In principle, this separation allows sociology to produce credible, scientific knowledge. However, sociology does not study inert objects; it studies living societies shaped by power, inequality, and conflict. As a result, complete detachment often appears more aspirational than achievable.

Polarised Societies and the Crisis of Objectivity

Polarised societies are characterised by sharp ideological divides, moral absolutism, and declining trust in institutions, including academia. In such environments, sociological research is rarely received as neutral. Findings are quickly labelled as “leftist,” “right-wing,” “anti-national,” or “elitist,” depending on how they align with dominant narratives.
Moreover, researchers themselves are embedded within these social divisions. Their social location—class, caste, gender, ethnicity, or political orientation—inevitably shapes their perspectives. Sociology’s core concern with inequality, domination, and social justice further complicates neutrality, as studying injustice often demands moral engagement.

The Sociological Critique of Value-Neutrality

Critical sociologists argue that claims of value-neutrality can mask existing power relations. Feminist sociology, Marxist traditions, and postcolonial perspectives highlight that “neutral” knowledge has historically reflected the values of dominant groups. From this viewpoint, refusing to take a normative stance in contexts of oppression may amount to tacit support for the status quo.
In polarised societies, silence or excessive neutrality can be interpreted as complicity. Sociology, therefore, faces pressure not only to explain the world but also to question and critique it.

Towards Reflexive and Responsible Sociology

Rather than abandoning scientific rigor, many contemporary sociologists advocate reflexivity over strict neutrality. Reflexive sociology acknowledges the researcher’s values and positionality while maintaining methodological transparency and empirical discipline.
In polarised societies, this approach allows sociology to remain analytically robust while ethically responsive. The goal is not activism disguised as scholarship, but responsible knowledge production—where evidence, theory, and ethical awareness coexist.

Conclusion

In deeply polarised societies, absolute value-neutrality in social sciences is neither fully possible nor always desirable. Sociology cannot escape values because it studies a value-laden social world. However, this does not justify ideological bias or intellectual dishonesty. The challenge lies in balancing objectivity with reflexivity, and scientific rigor with social responsibility. Sociology’s strength ultimately lies not in pretending to be value-free, but in critically examining how values shape both society and the production of knowledge itself.