Joe &al:

Btw, for anyone tracking down the topic of "Pure Sociology," I have  
appended Donald Black's 1995 article "The Epistemology of Pure  
Sociology."  I can also do that for Joe's 2008 and 2016 articles but I  
thought that Joe should give me permission first (or perhaps he has  
already done it for the list) . . . <g>

The most aggressive (or insulting) "on-the-other-hand" cited by Joe  
seems to be the work of Christian Smith in his various books,  
including "The Sacred Project of American Sociology."  For those  
without an academic library at hand (or not willing/able to pay the  
prices charged by those who publish for them), there is a marvelous  
site called memoryoftheworld.com, where many of Smith's books reside  
as *free* DIY scans (along with 1,200,000+ others).

Smith's "Sacred" can be found here --

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__slowrotation.memoryoftheworld.org_Christian-2520Smith_The-2520Sacred-2520Project-2520of-2520American-2520Soc-2520-2844679-29_The-2520Sacred-2520Project-2520of-2520American-2520-2D-2520Christian-2520Smith.pdf&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OoahxVCXNFhbJlBGErpmRP_VA1gPeoIZkc23RWaFx2Q&s=6YUWpXbt-jwWBRt6hBWY-mIjjkeoMGsWQ4SmSzaIbv8&e=

Mark
Quoting Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>:

> Joe:
>
> Yes, I couldn't help myself.  I went looking for your CV . . . <g>
>
> And I found this (among many other interesting things) --
>
> 'In his critique of Donald Black's work and the "pure sociology"  
> framework, Douglas Marshall (2008) raises issues that are primarily  
> philosophical in nature and hence not amenable to scientific  
> investigation. Paradigmatic preferences have long been debated and,  
> in many instances, resolved among sociological practitioners  
> accordingly: they largely ignore each other (if possible), pursue  
> different lines of inquiry, and communicate mainly with others who  
> share their assumptions. Marshall has opted for a different path.  
> Rather than ignore the pure sociology paradigm, his comments are  
> aimed at trying
> to discredit the perspective altogether. In a discipline that  
> endorses an unbridled degree of intellectual pluralism (Michalski  
> 2005a; Turner 2006a), one might imagine that the pursuit of the pure  
> sociology program would be a source of inspiration or at least  
> reassurance. For Marshall (2008), however, pure sociology poses real  
> "dangers" by ignor ing what he believes to be the key explanatory  
> features of social life: "the psychological  properties of . . .  
> persons"' [The Social Life of Pure Sociology, first paragraph, 2008]
>
> If "sociology" is the study of *society*, then it makes sense that  
> this is not the same as "psychology" (for the reasons you detail.)   
> But, as you know, that would imply that, in some sense, "social  
> life" *constructs* the individual -- not the other way around.  No  
> wonder that causes major heartburn in some quarters . . . !!
>
> "Social Constructivism" -- which I would characterize as the mental  
> disorder based on imagining the world to be whatever you'd like it  
> to be (as-if life was a bed-time story) -- has been rampant in the  
> social sciences at least since the 1980s (if not longer).  It is  
> bankrupt and has already shot-itself-in-the-head (and, yes, its  
> causes still need to be understood) . . . !!
>
> Most people point to Peter Berger's 1967 "Social Construction of  
> Reality" and Leo Marx's 1994 "Does Technology Drive History?" as  
> among the basic texts for this approach.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Social-2DConstruction-2DReality-2DSociology-2DKnowledge_dp_0385058985&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=6Gv2LRtSMHOVw94cly2s7JDPqTdbH57NCus1GIXeJUo&e=
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Technology-2DHistory-2DDilemma-2DTechnological-2DDeterminism_dp_0262691671&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=2hZne6Bd8olBnDqzWxruEHXrxUPP7qfiRgPx_WjA-_8&e=
>
> My best guess is that all this is a product of the "politicization"  
> of the social sciences starting in earnest in the 1960s.   
> Sociologists were often in the front of that parade.  C. Wright  
> Mills got a lot of air-time, as he turned Max Weber into a study of  
> "power elites" (by-passing Pareto), as later continued in spades by  
> Michael Mann at UCLA in his 4-volume "Sources of Social Power"  
> (which, btw, I find useful). Yes, for these guys, this is all about  
> "power"(or the lack of it, in their cases.)
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Sources-2DSocial-2DPower-2DHistory-2DBeginning_dp_1107635977&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=FfTjDsxLXsKxJKNmcE6pnQnvL4SYFaJNEva3jTIRvFc&e=
>
> Today, if you're not a "social constructivist," then you are not  
> "politically correct" (as you know very well).  "Identity politics"  
> (i.e. today's version of the "left") depends on it.  Academia has  
> largely been rendered irrelevant by it.  Otherwise intelligent  
> people have been turned into blathering idiots by it.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Social-5Fconstructivism&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeZ4UKden7SC9vPq7GmLoWhXcaiCoCnaVJzH7jqVHM&s=WJT60Hb64Q6vWMGhX1RDcPHo-dyM_6HcapGErPNFKa8&e=
>
> John's work is all about how "conscious" cellular-life is  
> *constructed* by its environment.  However, the cellular environment  
> (or ecology) is only a part of a nested series of environments (no,  
> not a "network"), ultimately rising to the level of culture and  
> civilization for humans (alone among all the species).  And, no,  
> it's not "turtles all the way down" . . . <g>
>
> And Gregg's work is about repairing the "dis-joints" between Matter  
> (i.e. conventional "complexity science"), Life (i.e. what John  
> studies), Mind (i.e. Psychology) and Culture (i.e. Sociology) with a  
> Tree of Knowledge that attempts to "unify" all this via a stack of  
> "dimensions of behavioral complexity" (once again, reminding us of  
> the work of Georg Cantor on Transfinites in the 19th century).
>
> With Sociology at the "top" of that stack (or is it?), I'll be  
> really interested to see how all this sorts out in this group.  My  
> guess is that you will as well.
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. Gregg's TOK (not to be confused with his ToK) is related to  
> "Big History," which is an educational program started by  
> astro-physicists (and funded by Bill Gates).  From what I can tell,  
> this approach -- along with "complexity science" as expressed at  
> Santa Fe Institute &c -- has failed to actually "explain" anything  
> beyond how Matter "behaves" in a nuclear furnace (i.e. stars and  
> nuclear bombs).  All this appears to be based on the false-notion  
> that whatever the "building-blocks" do can then be extrapolated to  
> the final "construction," as-if sub-atomic particles can tell us  
> what we are going to eat for breakfast.  Wouldn't it be nice if the  
> world was so simple (or maybe not) . . . <g>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1



############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1