|
It seems as though several of us are talking across
one another rather than with one another.
Del - it seems as though you are taking some
statements so literally that their original intent is lost. Also - it
appears that you come from a different perspective than most of us - from an
applied/practice perspective - is this accurate?
Anne F. Eisenberg Assistant Professor Department of
Sociology SUNY-Geneseo 123D Sturges Hall Geneseo, NY
14454 716-245-5447 (office) 716-245-5337 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:37
PM
Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: need advice
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 [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
