Section IX: Transitions and Challenges
A. In this brief overview of the last several chapters, the authors give a glimpse of the most current trends in sociological theory. Although I certainly welcome the increased attention to women and race, I can't really say that I was terribly impressed with these new developments. I certainly would NOT agree with the assertion that feminist theories and theories of race and colonialism have done anything to resolve longstanding disputes such as the fact-value and micro-macro debates (as brought out in Chapter 19).
B. However, the authors' characterization of Chapter 19 does acknowledge an important point, which is that social movements outside of academia (women's movement, civil rights, anti-war, etc.) had a strong impact on what was happening WITHIN academia.
Chapter 19: Mid-Twentieth-Century Sociology
A. The authors begin by noting some of the momentous changes in the social and cultural life of most Western societies in the late 1950s and 60s.
1. And these changes were paralleled by challenges to the sociological orthodoxy of that era -- mainly structural-functionalism, but also with scientific (mainly quantitative) research. (C. Wright Mills, who, fortunately, is mentioned here, I believe did the best job of critically analyzing this orthodoxy in "The Sociological Imagination" (1959), attacking what he called: "GRAND THEORY" or Parsonian structural functionalism, and "ABSTRACTED EMPIRICISM" or quantitative survey research -- how both fit the existing order and provided no way to critically analyze it or change it.)
2. The authors note how many sociologists got involved in various radical movements.
3. This is not to say that sociologists had any significant or substantial impact on the issues they were involved with.
4. In many ways, this crucial period set the tone for sociology in the late 20th century. Clearly, some of the dominant issues and debates derive from this period.
B. Among these issues and debates, there is none of greater significance than that of FACTS AND VALUES. (Before we launch into this a bit, I'd like to say that the authors do a pretty good job in bringing out the different sides of this debate. Unfortunately, they rely too heavily on some of the weakest, most questionable critics of the value-free approach, namely, Gouldner & Friedrichs.)
1. They begin with Howard Becker's presidential address to the 1960 ASA convention which sort of laid down the gauntlet to those who were questioning sociology as a value-free, empirical science. As quoted: "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480) This reflected the professional, mainstream sociological position. (such cuss words-damned - are sprinkled on both sides of this debate, as if this lends greater force to their arguments.)
2. The authors go on to note some prominent American critics of the professional, value-free position -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to the value-free orthodoxy is captured in reference to Alvin Gouldner -- see middle paragraph, p. 482. (Note the assumption that VALUES and PASSION are considered synonymous, as are REASON and FACTS.)
b.) Of course, the value-free stance did not sit too well with students who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, take a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx (or, I should say, his ghost): "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (p. 484) (In one respect, I don't believe this is a valid distinction, but I'm certain what they meant is NOT the later, more scientific Marx, but the earlier more humanistic Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view on this issue was Alfred McClung Lee (who later founded the AHS or Association of Humanist Sociologists). He later expanded his presidential address, "Sociology for Whom?" into a book. See overview of his position middle, p. 486.
3. Even though this debate has yet to be resolved, the authors suggest it opened the door to a variety of new approaches.
C. The authors put the next debate (Macro/Micro Perspectives) in the context of Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and his analysis of PARADIGM CHANGE. Clearly, the fact/value debate also falls under this same heading, as the authors do note, and they also describe the micro/macro debate. See bottom paragraph, p. 488.
1. Although the authors see this macro/micro dichotomy as a "misguided division of the sociological endeavor" (as I also do), it has tended to divide sociologists -- even lead to competition for legitimacy and students (and their fees) -- how truly pathetic!
D. This sets the stage for the last two sections of this chapter -- recent theoretical work which attempts to bridge these divides. In particular, feminist sociological theory and theories of race and colonialism. (But, again, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perpectives bridging any divides.)
1. Most of what is discussed in the context of feminist sociological theory is evidence of how women had been discriminated against in academia until fairly recently.
2. The closest thing to any substantive theory is the comment from Simone de Beauvoir about women as "Other." see mid, p. 493.
3. It is not at all clear how feminist theory or research has begun "to transform traditional sociological content, methods, and theoretical perspectives" -- except to critically examine the role of women in society.
4. The sociology of race and colonialism is even less clear. Their account of BLACK MILITANCY and SOCIOLOGY AND RACE is superficial with some big gaps. (eg., no mention of the Kerner Commission Report on rioting in the mid 60s. Gunnar Myrdal's "An American Dilemma" is not mentioned. And they focus on some of the most inconsequential, although vocal, black leaders such as Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton, even Stokley Carmichael. Dr. King was actually more "miltant" in his own way than the whole lot put together.)
E. In "Final Thoughts," I guess you could say the authors VERY GENERALLY identify some of the changes these new theories supported. See bottom p. 498-499. But in the end, I don't see the case for some great paradigmatic shift in sociology.
Chapter 24: Final Thoughts on Sociological Theory
A. For the most part, this chapter simply represents a very cursory view of the range of sociological theories and the social and historical conditions they offered explanations of. It is only toward the very end that the authors address some important questions about the relevance of sociological thoery.
B. In the last section on the "Future of Sociological Theory," the authors present some POSTMODERN critiques of the whole sociological enterprise -- critiques which suggest sociological theorists' quest for answers to questions of ORDER in society, of SOCIAL CHANGE, of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, etc. is illusory -- that the very existence of an objective reality outside one's head, one's perspective, is called into question.
1. This may be an unfairly extreme view of postmodernism, but it is important to acknowledge the authors' (and my own) rejection of it, as the authors put it -- see bottom half, p. 608.
2. Finally, they also underscore that sociological theory is an "unfinished business," but in the end it is meaningless unless it has some bearing on transforming the world for the better. "It is an enterprise that, if it is true to its heritage, must be concerned with the promotion of ways and means to tranform the world, in order to offer dignity, health, and security to all human beings." (p. 609)
________________________
That's it for the text. Next week I'll be blogging notes on Ahrens' lectures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment