Hi, Martha, Brett, John, Amy, Andi, and everyone else. This has
been an interesting discussion, but I am surprised by how many times I
have been thinking to myself, "Go back to your Weber." To wit: "Order
is brought into this chaos only on the condition that in every case
only a part of concrete reality is interesting and significant
to us, because only it is related to the cultural values with
which we approach reality.... And even this causal explanation evinces
the same character; an exhaustive causal investigation of any
concrete phenomenon in its full reality is not only practically
impossible--it is simply nonsense" (Weber, "Objectivity in Social
Science", emphasis in original). Weber is not suggesting that we have
to be conservative or liberal or something else. Rather, he is
pointing out that we all make decisions to pay attention to some stuff
and not other stuff. That is a moral--read, value--decision. The data
themselves are what they are, but our decisions to pay attention to
lactation, gendered division of labor, the processes through which
people define art, the importance of your parents' education on your
life chances, or the ways that the structure of the state influences
the manifestation of a capitalist mode of production are value-laden
decisions.
Martha may accuse me of being conservative for saying this, but
I'm actually going to defend the "order sociologists" (in her examples,
functionalists) she questions below. I suppose it's my interactionist
leanings that have me trying to figure out what concepts mean to the
people who use them, rather than what some of us might wish they were.
Functional analysis doesn't justify things, it explains how they
operate at any given moment. An explanation of a gendered division of
labor need not--and, in fact, should not--claim to evaluate whether it
is a good thing; it simply is functional. I try to look at
these kinds of explanations from the perspective of an
ethnomethodologist--the question isn't what we would like to be the
case, nor what would be better, nor what would be worse; the real
question is what are the conditions that have produced things as they
are. If you find the way things are to be unsatisfying, by all means,
set about trying to find ways of making them different. One thing is
almost certain: the conditions you find better will piss someone off.
On balance, I probably agree with the goals many on the list seem
to be advocating. I'm not sure sociology's legitimacy should be judged
based on its abilities to affect social justice. Some very important
sociology trends in that direction and some does not. The question,
for my money, is not whether any given brand of sociology accomplishes
social justice. Rather, the question should be whether it accomplishes
what it claims to accomplish the way it claims to accomplish it.
Finally, I want to address the notion that paradigms need to come
together in order for the discipline to advance. I disagree.
Different paradigms address different questions in different ways.
Trying to find common ground between questions that address different
theoretical issues does neither perspective any favors; in fact, it
only dilutes their strengths. Unless I'm mashing two posts together--a
distinct possibility--the person with whom I am currently disagreeing,
suggested that Middle Range Theory should inform Grand Theory more
frequently. MRT and GT are different kinds of theorizing. Merton
himself said that MRT approaches grand theory by building paradigms,
and that happens by developing a lot of MRT that makes sense together.
The kinds of MRT that functionalists develop and apply will differ
substantially from the kind developed and applied by Marxists,
Interactionists, Structurationists, Weberian Conflict Theorists, and so
on. Some of those differences--when they become squabbling--can become
a bit silly. Some of those differences are actually quite important.
Claims that sociology isn't moving forward to a satisfying degree
often mean that the author doesn't like the way it is going. That's
not the same thing. There is a lot of interesting work getting done in
virtually every sector of the discipline. The stuff I find interesting
might be substantially different from what Martha or Brett find
interesting. That doesn't mean that what they find interesting is
better or worse than what I like; it addresses different issues.
Personally, I"m really glad there are folks who want sociology to be
justice-oriented and who want to follow Mertonian impulses. Their
desire to do that stuff frees me up to study the social construction of
art and professional resocialization.
I'm bastardizing Ghandi here, but if you want sociology to move in
a different direction, do the kind of work that will take it in that
direction and do that work well. If not, continue doing the work you
find satisfying and rewarding and do it well. Your choices are
value-laden no matter which way you go.
As always, A.
D. Angus Vail
Department of Sociology
Willamette University
900 State Street
Salem, OR 97301
Phone: 503.370.6313
Fax: 503.370.6512
"It's not enough to know that things work.
The laurels go to those who can show HOW they work."
From: GIMENEZ MARTHA E
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brett Magill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [email protected]
Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: Values in Sociology
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:48:08 -0700 (MST)
>
>
>
>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,
>
>
>Martha E. Gimenez
>Department of Sociology
>Campus Box 327
>University of Colorado at Boulder
>Boulder, Colorado 80309
>Voice: 303-492-7080
>Fax: 303-492-8878
>
