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
|
