Canonicals, anti-canonicals, and no canon at all: going “beyond the canon” or scrutinizing the anti-canonical options?

Abstract

Relying on the reflection that a concrete case has raised, in this article I intend to refute some of the claims of the critics of the sociological canon by highlighting three logical vices in their reasoning that I designate as facilitisms. In contrast, I suggest three criteria for access to the canon that can be used as parameters of admissibility of the authors suggested as alternatives. For this, I revisit the controversy between canonicals and anti-canonicals retracing their main arguments and propose to scrutinize some emblematic works of the “beyond the canon” movement. Finally, I suggest that the discussion should be shifted from the rhetoric of empowerment to the theoretical value of the alternatives presented by the critics of the canon.