TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

July 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 03:54:20 -0600
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (103 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2