Sociology is truly in a state of transformation driven by digitization. Photo: TUCHONG

Since the end of 2022, the continuous release of artificial intelligence (AI) products has sent shockwaves through society. Since AI is a subset of digital technologies, the discussion of digitization provides enlightening insights into the future of sociology.

Challenges of digitization

Digitization as discussed in this article refers to the process of representing attributes of information through numerical values and explaining relational patterns using computational models. The outputs of digitization include products and services presented in a digital format. “Digitization” is not only a process—the process of using digital technology to produce products and services—but also a state—the state in which products and services are produced using digital technology, as well as the state of life where digital products and services are consumed. The digital transformation drives revolutionary changes in society, from production to daily life, shaping a digital society deeply rooted in the complex structure of industrial society yet fundamentally different from it. This transformation brings at least two significant challenges to the field of sociology.

First, there is the challenge of capability. The capabilities discussed in sociology generally fall into two categories: one is the penetrating power of theoretical explanations, which is the ability to explain constantly changing social phenomena on both macro and micro levels; the other is the ability to manage information with methodological tools, which includes the capacity to measure and analyze the construction of constantly evolving social facts.

Compared to an industrial society, social facts in digital society are undergoing fundamental changes, shifting from those centered around physical social groups to those including “physical crowd × digital crowd × machine intelligence.” On the one hand, the overall digital transformation of society continuously generates social facts that can be observed and analyzed in the context of society’s transition from industrial to digital. These facts include economic, social, individual, and cultural transformations. On the other hand, the development of digital society itself constantly produces social facts that can be used to observe and analyze the creation and development of digital society, such as platform organizations, digital identities and self-presentation, digital communities and social capital, the digital divide and digital inequality, as well as daily life and cultural consumption.

The challenge for sociology is to develop the theories and methods to acquire, understand, handle, and apply social facts to describe and explain social phenomena in digital society, regardless of whether they stem from transitions or the generation of new societal forms.

Second, digitization is an existential threat to sociology. Sociology is not a necessity. For instance, some fields listed in the Chinese university catalog seem to lack inherent necessity but are the results of cultural preference, as evidenced by constant changes to the catalog. Historically, sociology’s survival and development have been supported by its positive contributions to understanding and explaining industrial society, which in turn contributed to society’s continuity and development. Similarly, sociology’s value will hinge upon its re-examination of key conclusions about industrial society as well as its description and explanation of new social phenomena in digital society. Thus, to survive and have a positive impact on the development of the digital society, sociology itself must undergo a digital transformation.

Sociology’s response

In the 1970s, sociologist and futurist Daniel Bell introduced the idea of the post-industrial society, significantly shaping general understandings of societal transitions, though it was not yet clear at that time that humanity was on the brink of entering a post-industrial, digital society. After Bell, other sociologists turned their focus toward the information society. Over time, these discussions have evolved from exploring the information and network societies to studying the digital society. However, sociology’s sensitivity to digital technology and social change largely remains polarized—either focusing on grand narratives or specific scenarios and niche topics. This means that sociological research often does not address fundamental themes in digital society, such as social bonds.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, academic research on digital society was scattered and superficial. Disciplines were fragmented, with fields ranging from engineering to the social sciences. certain key concepts were proposed by non-sociologists, such as “networked sentiment.” Within sociology itself, the early 21st-century research saw a focus on grand narratives with little exploration of specialized themes. It was not until the mobile internet permeated social life that sociologists began to shift their attention to what we now understand as the digital society.

In recent years, scholars studying the impact of digitization on society have taken two distinct stances. Some view digitization as a force driving social construction and promoting social change, others see it as a force undermining existing social cohesion. The former focuses on improvements of specific scenarios, such as social development, and the latter focuses on critical issues of specific scenarios, such as digital labor. Interestingly, those who focus on digitization and social change are often not mainstream sociologists from the industrial society era, but younger scholars from disciplines outside sociology, who often employ interdisciplinary theoretical approaches and cutting-edge methods in their research.

In terms of methodology, though mainstream sociologists remain keen on using case studies and statistical analyses of survey data, they still lack the tools and methods to acquire, understand, process, and utilize the vast and multimodal data generated by the digital society. Nonetheless, a new generation of sociologists is persistently engaging in exploration of innovative methods.

Sociology’s response to digitization is overgeneralized, fragmented, and traditional to a fault. It overgeneralizes by reiterating sociological trends describing the industrial society, as seen in iterative concepts including the post-industrial society, information society, network society, and digital society. This suggests that sociologists have noticed the impact of digitization but are still uncertain about its implications, and sociology’s insights have yet to emerge. It is fragmented because existing literature is thematically scattered, lacking a basic list of questions to describe and explain the digital society, and there has been no systematic response to key digital society themes, such as social cohesion. It is also traditional because, in both theory and methodology, sociology still relies on conventional approaches to analyze the digital society and has not yet developed innovative sociological theories and methods suited for the digital age.

Transformation of sociology

Going forward, sociology’s digital transformation needs to incorporate at least five significant changes.

First, the transformation of research questions in sociology is unanswered. The question of how society can exist remains fundamental in the digital age. However, the premises that supported the conclusions of Durkheim and Weber about industrial society have fundamentally changed. Society is no longer organized solely by labor units such as factories within the division of labor; instead, the entire society serves as the unit of social division of labor.

Moreover, the units participating in this division are no longer limited to humans of different social classes. Now scholars ask how machine-ecological solidarity is possible, with individuals as the unit and global society as the boundary. The framework has expanded. Beyond the mechanical solidarity of families lies localized societies, then the organic solidarity of organizations, and finally there are larger societal units like cities or sovereign states.

Second, there is a transformation in materials. The ubiquity of connectivity raises privacy concerns, making it increasingly difficult to ethically collect survey data. On the other hand, the ubiquity of sensors and data collected by the Internet of Things has created an environment rich in data, where abundant actions and social connections generate data. Unfortunately, scholars rarely have access to these vast data archives, which are primarily held by institutions, nor do they have the theories and technologies to process and utilize this data. Beyond traditional materials like case studies and survey data, sociology must develop reliable theories, stable paths, and effective techniques for acquiring and processing mixed materials, especially vast and multimodal data.

Third, there is a transformation in methods. Sociology traditionally employs methods like logical reasoning, narrative induction, and statistical computation. However, in terms of logical reasoning, social phenomena have become too complex in digital society; the data have become too vast and varied for narrative induction; and no statistical computation methods currently exist that can analyze unstructured materials. To say the least, sociology must collaborate with other disciplines such as data science to develop methodological systems that use mixed materials to describe the properties of digital society and discover (rather than merely test) the relational patterns between phenomena.

Fourth, there is a transformation in sociological theory. Digitization leads to a theoretical change because it demands a description and explanation for the ecological social solidarity of human-machine integration in a world where the production and life of physical populations are still strongly constrained by sovereign state systems, while individuals and organizations use digital technology to create their self-centered societies within the global society.

Fifth, there is a transformation in knowledge. If we apply Weber’s concept of the ideal type, sociology could be viewed as the ideal type of knowledge. The knowledge produced by sociologists mainly circulates within academic circles and rarely enters everyday production and life. Before the digital society, sociological knowledge could be disseminated through school classrooms. Even ideal-type knowledge had an impact on society due to its institutionalized dissemination, giving it value. However, ubiquitous connectivity now allows every social member to describe and explain social phenomena.

At the same time, sociological knowledge is no longer confined to the classroom; it must transcend academic circles, directly engage with society, and integrate into daily production and life. The change in knowledge brought by digitization highlights sociological insights and expresses complex knowledge in a worldly manner, subtly integrating it into everyday production and life.

In summary, digitization presents sociology with historic opportunities but also fatal challenges. In this era, sociology is truly in a state of transformation driven by digitization.

Qiu Zeqi is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Sociological Research and Development Studies at Peking University.