Why outdated distinctions limit our thinking — and how we can redefine them for the digital age

Are we stuck with analog thinking?

For the past few years, I’ve been part of a team of scholars from around the world working on a challenging question: Are the core distinctions of social theory still relevant in today’s world? This was no small task. It required two large-scale brainstorming sessions, a deep quantitative analysis of the 100 most influential sociology books of the 20th century, and a collective effort to map out how social theory is—or isn’t—keeping pace with digital transformation.

I’m incredibly proud to have worked alongside my partner in crime Prof. Dr. Steffen Roth , with his vision to push the boundaries of social theory, and Steve Watson , S?ren M?ller, Lars Clausen , Kre?imir ?a?ar, Harry Dahms, and Vincent Lien, each of whom brought unique perspectives and expertise to the project.

The result? A study that challenges some of the most fundamental ways we categorize society.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00113921251316685

(If you hit a paywall, the article can be downloaded here: https://lnkd.in/dgBz4yVm

What we found was surprising:

1. Many of the categories we take for granted don’t hold up under scrutiny.
2. We are using analogue theories to analyze a digital world.
3. If we want better answers, we need to rethink how we classify problems.

Take capitalism vs. socialism. For decades, this distinction has framed political and economic debates. But in reality, almost no system is purely one or the other. Nordic countries mix free markets with social safety nets. China blends state control with private enterprise. The U.S. government plays a massive role in shaping markets. A more useful approach? Capitalist vs. non-capitalist and socialist vs. non-socialist—breaking the binary into dimensions that reflect reality.

Or consider black vs. white. We often talk about race as a fixed dichotomy, but racial categories vary drastically across societies and histories. Millions of people don’t fit neatly into one side or the other. A better way to think about it? Racialized vs. non-racialized, or privileged vs. marginalized—categories that capture social dynamics rather than forcing people into artificial binaries.

A few other counterintuitive insights emerged from our study:

• Many classic social theory distinctions are “false.” They are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. Take economy vs. society—it assumes they are separate, but the economy is a subsystem of society.
• Most theories of digital transformation are still analogue. Even scholars studying AI, big data, and automation often rely on theoretical models developed for the industrial age.
• False distinctions can be translated into precise ones. Instead of clinging to outdated binaries, we can create clearer, more adaptable conceptual frameworks.

This problem isn’t new. Niklas Luhmann, one of the most influential social theorists of the last century, reminds us that all forms of observation imply the drawing of a distinction. In other words, we can only perceive and analyze the world by separating one thing from another. But these distinctions are not fixed or given—they are created. And when the world changes, our distinctions must evolve too.

In our study, we asked: What are the guiding distinctions of social theory in the 20th and 21st centuries? And more importantly: How compatible are they with the digital transformation of society?

The ultimate challenge is this: social theorists, policymakers, and business leaders all need to update their mental models. We wouldn’t navigate a modern city using a century-old map. So why are we still thinking about society with categories that no longer fit?

This isn’t just an academic issue.

The way we define problems determines the solutions we create.

/