Making Amends

I left class yesterday in a proverbial "funk," thinking that I did not do a very good job presenting that point about the difference between sociological theory and ideology and also introducing the Enlightenment precursors of sociology. So, I am going to use this blog to make amends and hopefully present this material more clearly and systematically, and also incorporate that passage from "In Defense of Food," which I quoted in class.

A. Sociological theory (like all scientific theory) aspires to be free of ideology. Ideology being defined as -- "...a set of ideas that justifies judgments about good/bad, superior/inferior, better/worse." And a bit later the authors of our text add: "...when applied to individuals or groups, ideology is thought to assert or legitimze the power of some group over another." (p. 5) (eg., racial ideology, political ideology, such as communism, etc.)

(It was at this point that I interjected the example of "nutritionism," which Michael Pollan presents in his book, "In Defense of Food." He says, "The first thing to understand about nutritionism is that it is not the same thing as nutrition. As the "ism" suggests, it is not a scientific subject but an ideology. Ideologies are ways of organizing large swaths of life and experience under a set of shared but unexamined assumptions." (p. 28) I like the way he describes an ideology here. And what I tried to go on to do (but perhaps failed) was illustrate the basic unexamined assumption of nutritionism, which is that a food is merely the sum of its nutrients. From this flows countless processed food items composed of various nutrients which cannot be assumed to be equivalent to the whole foods from which these nutrients are derived. I guess you'd have to read the book to get the full flavor (pun intended) of Pollan's argument, but I thought it does shed some light on the term ideology.)

1. An ideology is NOT a theory, even though it may offer some sort of explanation of things. Nonetheless, these terms are often intertwined (eg. Marxist ideology & theory).

2. Sociologists (as social SCIENTISTS) aspire to be OBJECTIVE, DISPASSIONATE, yet they are interested, and perhaps should be, in social reform or efforts to improve society. (Let me add here, that in the end, value questions, I would insist, as does Prof. Ahrens in "Order and Disorder in Society," cannot be ignored. Indeed, a sound knowledge of the world is the only real basis or ground for value or moral judgment.)

a.) Max Weber referred to this aspiration to complete objectivity as an "impossible obligation," but one sociologists must take on. The problem stems from the fact that we are both "subject" and "object" -- easier for a scientist to be objective when analyzing chemical reactions in a test tube; we, however, live in our test tube, have certain values, ethnic, religious affiliations, etc.., which complicates our ability to study society dispassionately.

Then, skipping over my presentation of those three Researach Traditions, let me pick up with the next section in the text: "THE PHILOSOPHICAL PRECURSORS OF SOCIOLOGY"

A. Many important developments in philosophy laid the groundwork for the emergence of sociology in the early 19th century with Auguste Comte, the thinker who coined the term "sociology." Various intellectuals promoted the positivist idea that the social world could be understood in the same terms as the physical world of nature because of the human capacity to reason.

1. Where sociology differs from many of these philosophers is in recognizing society as a distinct entity, created by humans, subject to change.

B. As our modern world (basically dating from the very beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century) was being born in the wake of the Renaissance, the medieval, feudal world based on tradition and religion was being aggressively challenged. Rather than the Church and God being the center of things, Society and People, and Science were taking over.

1. In bold print (bottom, p. 9), the authors define or label the various attitudes (or political positions) toward these changes. (as noted, these terms will pop up again and again in the history of sociological theory.)

2. Thinkers, artists, scientists such as Leonardo da Vinci (who was all three), Galileo, Descartes, and many more challenged the religious world view.

3. What is known as the "Enlightenment" represents the culmination of this secular philosophy, and this period (basically the 18th century) is witness to significant social, political and economic change, all of which forms the backdrop for the emergence of sociology.

THE PHILOSOPHES AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT

A. The authors note the overwhelming interest of Enlightenment thinkers in the attainment of human snd social perfectibility in the here and now, not in some other-worldly heaven. And this goal could be attained through the acquisition of knowledge and the use of reason.

1. They placed great emphasis on practical knowledge -- how to farm, build bridges, but also how to run the affairs of state. Cites Diderot's famous "Encyclopedie" in this context.

B. You can see how this all plays into political revolution -- individuals using reason, rather than the traditional monarchy, should be the basis of government. Thomas Jefferson's preamble to the "Declaration of Independence" is a prime example of this Enlightenment political thought -- self-evident truths, all men created equal, have the right to reject unjust authority.

C. This thinking had the most far-reaching implications in France, inspiring the French Revolution, which, unfortunately, was followed by a bloody aftermath and restoration of the monarchy.

D. The authors, then, proceed to discuss some of the important thinkers of this Enlightenment period, many of whom inspired the political revolutions in both America and France. They helped usher in this new age: transform SUBJECTS, living under custom and tradition, monarchy into CITIZENS, based on individual freedom and rationality.


That brings us up to Thomas Hobbes, where I will pick up tomorrow. Please incorporate the above lecture notes/clarifications in your notes.

Let me also remind most of you that you still need to post your comment on the "forest and trees" problem, which is described in the previous blog post. See you all tomorrow.