Having been a member of the blogosphere for a couple of months now, I notice that one of the concerns frequently expressed and taken up by academics on their blogs has to do with the need to defend their respective disciplines against the encroachment of others – even though while doing so they continue to look over the fence, remarking with envy at how successful other fields are in attracting smart undergraduates and star faculty, how much more press and prestige they get, how much more rigorous their methods are, and so on and so forth. Sociologists seem particularly prone to this; we all would rather be sociologists than political scientists or, even worse, economists, but yet…
My one scribbling on this topic, which I put up a few weeks ago, has been by far the most popular post on my blog (though that’s not saying much, given what a minute readership I have). In it, I expressed in rather hurried terms how I came to ‘choose’ sociology as my preferred discipline, even though my background was in history and political science. I never explained why I avoided economics, which seems to be the ‘prestige’ discipline within the social sciences of present time (who knows what the social sciences of next time will bring?). But, I don’t think I have to explain or justify my preferences do I? After all, each discipline has its strengths and virtues and the best you can do is to choose the one that’s congenial to your sensibilities and intellectual strengths, work hard at producing interesting research and findings, borrow from other disciplines where it may be useful or profitable, and keep to your own when it isn’t. This sounds tremendously naive, I know, but it’s the only ethic I can – or I think have to – live by while I’m still a grad student. Maybe if I ever go up for a full-fledged tenure-track job, or even get tenure, I’ll adopt more suitably territorial dispositions.
But then…I started to doubt my commitment to sociology after reading the following excerpt quoted in this post on Matthew Tabor’s blog, Education for the Aughts. Matthew calls our attention to a devastating critique of sociology that we in the field of sociology of education, at least, would do well to heed:
Sociology limits learning–That’s STUPID! It experiments on people as if they were laboratory animals–That’s STUPID! Sociology demands acceptance of destructive and degenerate types of behavior–That’s STUPID! Sociology dictates group thinking. That’s STUPID! Sociology restricts honest speech. That’s STUPID! Sociology attempts to destroy character and personality. That’s STUPID! Sociology endorses sexual perversion. That’s STUPID! Sociology lies about its goals. That’s STUPID! Sociology suggests student protests and violence. That’s STUPID! Sociology promotes unmarried pregnancy. That’s STUPID! Sociology sanctions lying by elected officials to support sociological goals. That’s STUPID! Sociology works to end private ownership of land. That’s STUPID! Sociology promotes communist world government. That’s STUPID! Americans have done little to limit the power and influence of sociologists in the classrooms. That’s STUPID!
Let’s not continue supporting stupidity. Get Rid Of Sociological Stupidity. Think GROSS! It is important to our country’s future to Get Rid Of Sociological Stupidity. Get Rid Of School Sociology. Sociology is not, and never has been a science. Get rid of it. Think GROSS!
All of this, apparently, because the author discovered that Auguste Comte was the founder of sociology. Remarkable.
Matthew’s absolutely right to call Ednews.org on this, for including such nonsense, though I have to confess I can’t even muster the energy to be outraged. Why take such drivel seriously? Then again, I’ll probably be the one who loses his job because I’m a ’sociologist – that’s STUPID!’
More seriously, and with respect to sociology’s standing vis-a-vis economics: while economists seem from certain quarters to get all the pride and attention and flattery (see this post on Greg Mankiw’s blog), I know they have to deal with their share of detractors and unfair criticism as well. Still, I wonder if economists have to suffer as sociologists seem to do the utterly lunatic, splenetic attacks of the sort noted above. “Sociology = socialism” I remember reading somewhere on Orgtheory.net, and while I don’t disavow having occasional socialist inclinations, especially when having dinner with my now vastly wealthy college roommate, the crack is supposed to be a base insult which I find just peculiar in its intended vituperativeness and mean-spiritedness. The interesting thing for me is: when and why did sociology become the acadmiec fixation of choice for the ‘paranoid style’ in American politics?
This is one of the more provocative posts I’ve read in some time – I wish that I unzip 10,000 words to cover all the things it made me think about.
I think that among non-academics the mistrust of sociology comes mainly from two things: its name, which is far-reaching and has too many negative associations, and that it’s seen as the historical root of every wacky “_______ Studies” discipline where the blank is filled by increasingly-fashionable identity subgroups. It doesn’t help that the majority of undergraduate sociology curricula aren’t particularly rigorous compared to disciplines such as economics. As with the other social sciences, I think that sociology – if it wants to – can mature, introduce more rigor and will be seen differently even in 20 years.
Sociology also suffers from giving a non-specific solution to that ever popular question, “What are you going to do with THAT degree?” As someone who recognizes that undergraduate education [with a few exceptions, obviously] is about giving a student basic skills that will be used in every job they’ll ever have, I hate that question. The finest sociology scholars to whom I’ve had access seem to be experts in several related disciplines; I probably would give them 3 other academic labels before ‘Sociologist,’ though I suppose that combination is indeed what makes a fine sociologist.
The EdNews case is a travesty. Articles from NewsWithViews frequently pass through their site as legitimate commentary. Erica Carle is one of the lighter offenses; though not herself worthy of outrage, she’s a link in a chain of worthless content that warrants reaction. Devvy Kidd, another NWV staple, wrote the following regarding Gay/Lesbian/etc groups on campuses:
“How can parents spend the evening out at Applebee’s and ignore these dangerous sodomite and lesbian operations and their agenda? Think this one isn’t coming to your school?” and regarding homosexuals, “A study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that the average active homosexual male ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year (largely from rimming), and that the number of sexual partners averages nearly 100. Homosexual persons, per year, on average fellated 106 different men, swallowed 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and had 72 penile penetrations of the anus.”
Every time I read that I think of Kyle Broflovski’s mom screaming, “Wha-wha-WHATTT?!?” As I wrote on my site, I generally don’t support identity subgroups on high school campuses; even so, this content is outrageous and devoid of any value. The content at NewsWithViews has no place in the education debate and I do hope EdNews.org stops their feed.
It certainly makes me wonder why EdNews is so committed to including NWV’s articles.
Matthew, thanks for your reply.
My rather facetious comments were intended as something of a riff on a number of other much more systematic and insoghtful posts that can be found on various blogs regarding sociology’s standing within the academy and in the public mind. While I never went through an undergraduate sociology education, I share in the impression after talking with others is that the subject is often taught rather dreadfully – without either rigor or verve and imagination – which of course only hurts disciplinary standing. And you’re right, many people translate “I’m studying sociology” into “I’m condemning myself to an impecunious life of vague intellectual or practical utility and perhaps suspect moral value.” Still, I’m a little surprised at the kinds of acid comments that I read and hear that are directed at sociology, as if the field should be held primarily and directly responsible for any number of social, political, cultural, and intellectual ills suffered by contemporary society. Of course, given that I’m studying at a graduate school of *education* I suppose I’d better just learn to develop a thick hide.
Thanks also for drawing attention to NWV; if EdNews has any pretensions to respectability it is a curiosity why they should feel it permissble to include such reprehensible views.
I thankyou for the materials you are offering us. Its realy helping alot of people. may you help me on this question:
write a critique of two founding fathers of sociology of education?
Awesome book that delves into this that I just started is Alvin Gouldner’s “Coming Crisis of Western Sociology”. Although published in the 1971, many of the insights apply to contemporary sociology
@Volscho: Thanks for the tip. I bought that book many years ago, a used copy, and loaned it out to someone before I even cracked it open…and now I realize, it’s been long gone! I should try to recover it, I guess.
To you all, an interesting site with “effective Sociology”
http://sociotto.synthasite.com/forum.php
This week’s insight : strategic positionning (1)