Martha, My point was, sans the description and elaboration, sociological knowledge does not need to have and, indeed, I would argue, should not have ideological content. Sociology need not be inherently liberal or inherently conservative. I think your post reinformces that. Though, sociologists certainly tend to have some predilections.
What is done with sociological knowledge, on the other hand, is ideological and inherently value laden. A marketer might use sociological knowledge to pad the incomes of investors, a public administrator might use it to improve city services. Values lie in these applications and goals. George Box said, "all models are wrong, some models are useful." The test of a theory, as a model for society, is its ability to generate useful conjectures about how things work. To the degree that a theory does that, it can lead to useful applications, that is social technologies. If the theory does not work, it needs to be amended or given up altogether. This *adversarial* process, as ideas compete, is science. What I believe is missing in sociology is any dialog between theories. There are no real connections between the middle-range and grand-theories within sociology (Merton). There might be some competitive testing of theories in isolated areas of practice, but nothing that advances the discipline. How do exchange, conflict, functional, and interactions theories stack up in explaining social phenomena? Where is the body of knowledge that can move sociology forward? Are we a pre-paradigmatic science? ( I think it was Ritzer who wrote on this, following Kuhn). --- GIMENEZ MARTHA E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Brett Magill wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Yes, but which "things social" and from what > theoretical perspective? I > remember when "order" models prevailed, women were > defined as "lactating > organisms" (thus legitimating the sexual division of > labor), gender > inequality at home and in the occupational structure > was considered > "functional" for marital integration and solidarity, > "underdevelopment" > was explained as an effect of lack of "achievement > motivation," the > nuclear family was a "functional prerequisite of all > societies," and > social inequality was simply "an unconsciously > evolved mechanism" to make > sure talented people were motivated to fulfill > functionally important > positions... and I could go on.... > > Do you think all those views were "scientific" and > "value free"? > > Best,
