TEACHSOC: Re: need advice

[Del Thomas Ph. D.]

Hi, Lets not get sloppy. Did Schwalbe state "only the examined life is really worth living?"   What evidence does Schmalbe have to support his suggestion of a sociologically examined life.  Has it ever been tested or is there agreement on what a sociologically examined life wold be? I objected to the only as well as the failure to encourage thinking about possible bad news regarding mobility.  The only way social problems can be manifested is thru individuals...even though the locus is the situation and not the person(s) who happen to manifest them.  Why would you seek out structural foundations?  What will you do when you find them? In my practice I find it much more valuable to find solutions. Your description of science is backwards most post classical science including Durkheim are anti entropic . Also you claim that biologists are trying to extend life beyond its natural conclusion... who knows what its natural conclusion is.... do you?  I asked the list earlier this year for examples of sociological breakthroughs only one of you was interested.  And his suggestion was ignored.  What have your students done that has made a measurable difference in the community they served? I do not quarrel with your beliefs. You and I can have very different beliefs as to what is humane and better.  That is of course where religion and moral systems depart.  I do  not  consider it appropriate for me or you or Schwalbe to decide what is good for others..  When did we find out what people want any way...I guess that will eliminate the need for elections. Del  Robert Hironimus-Wendt wrote: Actually Del, I disagree. Schwalbe suggested in his book that the sociologically examined life is one worth living, meaning that we need to teach our students and ourselves to seek out structural foundations for social problems, as well as environmental foundations for the problems we experience personally. I think he is correct, as is Erin. As to the "puritan" inference, I do not see it. If society is to change in a predictable and humane way, guided social action is required. I do not believe society operates "sui generis," nor do I subscribe to "laissez-faire" doctrines. Hence, I attempt to show my students (through service learning) (a) how they can, and (b) that they can, make a difference in the well-being of the communities in which they live. That is, they can use sociological knowledge to perform social actions that work toward more humane communities. At a more theoretical level, I think it is wrong to continually teach our students that sociology is a science, and that an essential and defining characteristic of any science is the absence of agenda/ideology. All scientists pursue socially relevant agendas. Biologists seek to improve the environment, and extend life beyond its natural conclusion. Chemists do the same, and to make life more comfortable. All sciences have a potential to effect good or bad. To deny this seems naïve to me. The denial of morality claims in sociology is (to me) an attempt to conserve the "status quo" of our discipline, as it existed in a limited time frame (circa 1940-1960), in a specific space (the ivory tower type institutions in the United States, which were never the majority). These American sociologists (who were White Anglo men from the upper middle classes) wanted to prove that sociology could resemble the mechanistic sciences of the natural world - in other words, sociology could be a science of society without reference to humanistic concerns. While that was certainly possible, and was certainly the paradigm de jure, we have moved beyond that model as a discipline. I know of few sociologists who wish to pursue that model today. Most sociologists today see a socially relevant purpose to our pursuits, and in the final analysis, a paradigm shift has occurred. Sociology today is not the functionalism of the 1950s - just ask the neo-functionalists.... In sum, I think Erin is right to teach her students that they can make their immediate social environments healthier, and that they should use sociology to do so. The science of society has already taught us how to determine what people want, and how to determine the most humanistic and efficient means for achieving these collective desires. To gather this knowledge and then NOT do use it for the collective good would not make our discipline an a-moral discipline: it would make us an im-moral discipline. Peace 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It doesn't matter how strong your opinions are. If you don't use your power for positive change, you are indeed part of the problem, helping to keep things the way they are." -Coretta Scott King --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group. To post to this group, send email to teachsoc@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---