Dear Mark (et al. - feel free to ignore, since this mainly addresses Mark & sociology, but some may find these comments interesting):


For those who have spare time, Mark has attached "The Epistemology of Pure Sociology," which is Black's article length defense of pure sociology, or a treatise that metaphorically combines Newton's Principia and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. IMO, the article continues to be the pièce de résistance of Black's paradigm that claims one can have a "pure sociology" unencumbered by psychology, especially if one conceives of "social life" as an ontological reality independent of "mental life" or divorced from the three p's: people, psychology, and purposes. He also makes a number of claims designed to inflame. Here are a few classics:


"I now believe that the radically unpsychological nature of my work is a primary reason it so successfully meets the goals of scientific theory outlined earlier: Because my formulations require no psychological knowledge of anyone, they are easily tested by outward observation and direct measurement."

"Assumptions or assertions about anything in the human mind introduce a fog of uncertainty into any formulation... In the name of sociology, therefore, I declare independence from psychology."

"(Dali) remarked that "The only difference between the Surrealists and me is that I am a
Surrealist. Likewise, the only difference between most sociologists and me is that I am a sociologist."

"The elimination of people radically simplifies human reality: Whereas the explanation of human behavior previously required an understanding of all the human beings involved, now it requires only an understanding of the social beings involved."

"My sociology escapes the scientific shortcomings of teleology. It neither assumes nor imputes the ends of anyone or anything. It offers only formulations that are readily and completely testable and falsifiable. It evaluates nothing. In my sociology, social life has no goals, purposes, values, needs, functions, interests, intentions, or anything else not directly observable by anyone. It simply behaves. It just is."

"I took sociology seriously: I stripped it of psychology. I stripped it of teleology. I stripped it of ideology. I even stripped it of people. I scrapped every explanation of human behavior not distinctively sociological and
completely factual. I pursued the accepted ideals of science: generality, simplicity, and the rest of it. But my strategy had consequences I never expected: It stripped humanity itself. It reduced human behavior to its
simplest expression. It left nothing but social life. And I know now that anyone who is not shocked by my work has not understood it. I myself am shocked."

No, it's not turtles all the way down (great reference), but Black killed the turtles too! The idea of "pure sociology" has not caught on, however, as such a diverse group of academicians coming from so many different locations in the social universe could never agree to such a narrow focus. More generally, I have proposed that with the Internet & the diversity of social media, even the Beatles would not have been the phenomenon that they were back in the early 1960s.

More specifically for Mark:


I must confess that I am supremely impressed that you should know as much of the "insider baseball" game in sociology as you do in biology (in your friendly arm-wrestling with John), in other fields (philosophy & religion, e.g.), and certainly with respect to technology and the digital age (where you are out in front of most of us). There are not many people I know who could debate McLuhan, cell-cell communication, classical philosophy, determinism in the sciences, transhumanism, AND would be familiar with all the insider stuff that people like me in sociology study. Heck, even most of my colleagues in sociology would not be as familiar with Mann's seminal work on power which commenced back in 1986 with Volume 1, Berger & Luckmann's work  (most will know this one!), Christian Smith's critique of the discipline (and the "lost person" in sociology), and Donald Black's "sociological fundamentalism" (yes, I was a student of Black's before being ex-communicated from the church of pure sociology for daring to question certain foundational principles - much like it's tough to be a true "Christian" if you question Christ's divinity; sort of undermines the core logic of the theology - [he says, as a guy who studied for a year to be a Catholic priest!]).


In any event, you are quite right to point to the politicization of the field in the 1960s as a key turning point, followed by the diversification of the disciplines -- all of which introduced a range of different perspectives into the analysis of human behavior across the disciplines (gender, ethnicity, and a host of other "standpoints") that morphed eventually into "intersectionality theory" and the more direct forms of "identity politics." While there's obvious value in diversity and the sharing of even the most unconventional of ideas, a great many interests end up being threatened by those which challenge their orthodoxies -- whether on the left or the right politically, or in terms of other institutional spheres of power (corporatism, media control, government policies, etc.).


I have found, for example, that I can't even begin to have a reasonable discussion highlighting the strengths and limitations of universal health care, despite being intimately familiar with the U.S. & Canadian systems -- having lived exactly half my life in each country -- and extremely familiar with the data on system costs, tax issues, access issues, bankruptcy issues, data like IMR and age expectancy, etc. When I interviewed for a couple of positions in the past year to consider returning to the U.S., it was abundantly clear that even among those who were more sympathetic to my Canadian experience, they could not believe the level of coverage I enjoyed or our guaranteed 12 months for maternity/paternity leave (now expanded to an optional 18 months, though the last 6 months are not paid). They thrust different plans in front of me that I could opt into, identified the premiums I would have to pay (including for drug plans), and I realized that even in a position of relative power and privilege, it would be difficult to match my health care in Canada.


My main concerns these days -- when not trying to engage the broader intellectual problems that energize most of us on this list -- do indeed revolve around the legitimacy and value of higher education. The PEW national poll from last year that revealed that more than half of Republican voters viewed higher education as "part of the problem" confirmed that we have some real problems. The cases of leftist intolerance on campuses has fanned the flames such that the far right, in particular, delights in critiquing the "liberal reeducation camps" known as universities as much as the "fake news" that Trump constantly complains about in his incessant critique of a free press. And we are under pressure continually to demonstrate our "value" in terms of metrics that demonstrate the skills our students are acquiring and their levels of employment following graduation. Those who critique higher education most severely would be shocked, I think, to learn about how much time we spend doing VERY conventional things in running universities a lot like businesses (cost-benefit analyses, pursuing private sector partnerships and fundraising initiatives, constant budgeting issues and reducing inefficiencies, compliance with govt standards, ensuring we offer the right 'menu' of courses that our 'customers' prefer, tendering bids for cheaper food suppliers, simply figuring out how much to charge for student parking, etc., etc.). On a day-to-day basis, we are very much educational "factories". Yet most of us got into this "business" because of our love of ideas and the pursuit of knowledge -- not because we hoped to be administrators of large-scale bureaucracies. And yet here we are, and under attack at the same time! Thus, while I am enamored of the work our many colleagues do (we have a world-renowned Shakespeare scholar whom I try to listen to lecture whenever I can, as well as an expert on gravitational waves who presented a fabulous talk a few months ago about their detection), the broader mission is to identify the value and significance of the university as the 21st-century unfolds.


Yours kindly, -Joe


Dr. Joseph H. Michalski

Associate Academic Dean

King’s University College at Western University

266 Epworth Avenue

London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3

Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439

Fax: (519) 433-0353

Email: [log in to unmask]

______________________
eiπ + 1 = 0


________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2018 8:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Constructivism: Sociology vs. Psychology

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

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

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