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 pi¨¨ce de r¨¦sistance 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 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]
______________________
ei¦Đ + 1 = 0
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