This book begins by highlighting various risks associated with a research program on sociologically grounded therapy. Some readers may see that certain of these risks have been addressed in this initial proposal, which is discussed briefly below.
Vulgar sociology. It is true that what has been presented here is a simplification of sociology, which risks becoming “vulgar sociology.” The goal has been to strike a balance between complexity and simplicity. In the effort to simplify, some passages may have become too reductionist. Some may view the entire project as a vulgarization of sociology, as they would insist that sociology is not intended to provide individual advice or build individual wisdom. I have argued that this amounts to imposing an unnecessary straitjacket on what sociology is and could be, especially in light of the various sociologists who have previously demonstrated the viability of clinical sociology as a field, as well as its applications in social work, and the various sociologists who have advocated for a more practical use of sociology as a complement to a more policy, oriented and theoretical sociology. Furthermore, as mentioned, sociotherapy could also become a new way to test hypotheses in sociology. It would be a way to incorporate quasi, experiments into sociological research. This is not to say that observation, interviews, etc., are flawed methods.
Complex terminology. There are likely passages in this book where the terminology is too difficult, with too many new concepts, for readers who lack a prior understanding of sociology. The exercise section is written in a personal tone mixed with sociological terminology. It can be read by a prospective sociotherapist.
Psychologization of sociology. It is true that psychologists are referenced in a few places; however, I believe that their sociological insights are being utilized. Furthermore, the psychologists’ ideas are embedded in sociological thinking.
Individualization. The address to an imagined individual is particularly evident in the section on socio, asceticism. I would argue that with an explicit assumption that human agency and cognition are distributed, partial, varied, and limited, the risk of individualization is reduced. It is true that this book alone will not magically embed a person in communities that support the good life. Thus, after reading the book, one may feel just as alone as before. Perhaps it has provided enough inspiration to engage with the social realm in a new way that can open up possibilities.
A certain perspective on sociology is presented here that is not representative of all sociological research. Given the vast amount of research, it is essentially impossible to do justice to the entire field of sociology. The aim was to offer a proposal that serves as a starting point toward comprehensiveness. In a research program on sociotherapy, there is a wealth of sociological research that can be applied across various fields. Certain sociologists have featured more prominently than others, such as Richard Sennett, Roland Paulsen, Randall Collins, Eva Illouz, and Arlie Hochschild.
Chauvinistically universalizing. Perhaps the greatest criticism that some might level against this proposal is this universalism, which is, moreover, implicitly a particular “Western” view of the good life. The systematization of sociological diagnoses and various exercises has been carried out through ABT (Berglund, 2026). That book discusses and justifies universal socio, ethics. Moving forward, this would need to be explored more clearly in a sociotherapeutic context, taking into account the specific problems that may arise.
I believe the advantages of sociotherapy as a distinct research program could be realized: a new public sociology that is more practically oriented, in which sociology’s therapeutic claim is clarified. It could also be viewed as a competitor to psychiatric discourse, with its own field at the center, rather than infiltrating psychiatry and making it more sociological.
There is not yet sufficient research to present this proposal. This book should be viewed as a heuristic proposal for sociotherapy. It is not a basis for opening a practice, calling oneself a sociotherapist, and lining up clients. Scientific testing of various proposed exercises and methods is required to gradually build a foundation. Furthermore, a large part of the book is based on Aristotelian balance theory, which is itself a heuristic proposal (Berglund, 2026). Much of the content is therefore preliminary.