So, just to clarify, your argument is that, to be a sociologist one must have a social justice orientation? As I see it, you error in two ways in your argument. First, you confuse the science of sociology with its application. Second, you take as fact the assumption that sociology must be used for good, not evil just because that is how it has tended to be used in the past.
Though none will be satisfied with any definition of sociology proposed, I will venture to say that it is a discipline that makes an effort to understand things social. Structures, culture, interactions, beliefs and values, and their mutual influences. One can attempt to understand "the social" and how it works without attempting to do anything ameliorative. This is still sociology. Moreover, one could use sociological knowledge to increase injustice. This is still sociology. The distinction of course is between applied and basic sociological research. It is the difference between science and technology. Physicists study the mechanical principles of or physical universe and engineers turn those concepts into practical applications. Some make our lives better, like medical technologies, and some have the potential for great harm to human life, like nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that sociologists tend toward social justice and liberal ideals. This is, however, not a defining element of sociology. Many others share these ideals. The ACLU certainly does, but it is by no stretch of the imagination sociological in orientation. They do not make sociological arguments, rather legal ones to support justice. Moreover, I venture to guess there are more than a few rogue sociologists out there who do not share in this "social justice" orientation. The suggestion that sociology is defined by some specific ideological orientation does not stand up to critical examination. We, as sociologists, have values. Our science should not. If we let our values influence our science, we are no more than demagogues, advancing our own positions by hiding behind the thin veil of social sciences. --- Robert Hironimus-Wendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Folks > > > > I tend to side with John on the issue of values. > > > > Sciences are always value driven. Those who perform > them desire outcomes > that are viewed as important, helpful, essential, > necessary, etc. Biology, > Chemistry, Physics, Psychology, Sociology, etc., are > all disciplines, not > tools. SPSS is a tool akin to a hammer. But the > hammer does not define > carpentry, any more than the survey defines > sociology. > > > > Sociology as developed in the U.S. was premised upon > a social justice > orientation (e.g. The Chicago School folks, Jane > Addams, Du Bois, etc.). > Subsequently, some American sociologists from 1940 > to 1970 tried to suggest > that sciences were divorced of morality (e.g., > divorced of one form of > reason), and since sociology is a science, it most > denounce this form of > reason. Ironically, biologists do not waste time > with such matters, nor do > chemists. They simply ply their trade for the > purpose of making life better. > > > > On a similar note, I have never perceived sociology > as being depressing. I > view it as liberating. > > > > A good weekend to all > > Robert > > > > Robert J. Hironimus-Wendt, Ph.D. > Sociology and Anthropology > Western Illinois University > 1 University Circle > Macomb, IL 61455-1390 > phone: (309) 298-1081 > fax: (309) 298-1857 > email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
