The Diversity of Sociology
March 2nd, 2009 by SocProf and tagged Social Theory, Sociology
Over at Orgtheory, Fabio Rojas has a short post on the different sociological paradigms (which drew major sarcasm from Peter Levin… I’m sure there is a background story to this). The point of the post is that sociology might appear an incoherent discipline, in reality, no orthodoxy currently prevails:
Now, of course, one could quibble with this list, as with any typology, over who belongs in what box and whether the boxes are really boxes, etc. These kinds of debates are only interesting to us within the discipline, especially those of us who belong to the ASA Social Theory section.
The question is more, to me, who says sociology is incoherent? Other academics, the general public, the media? And if it is the media or the public, are they talking about the lack of dominant paradigm or the lack of central topic (as opposed to economics or psychology)? There was an interesting ASA panel last year in Boston, which I blogged about (while everyone else was at sociology superstar Sudhir Ventakesh’s talk) in the larger context of public sociology.
I don’t see the diversity of paradigms or sociological theoretical traditions as an issue (again, we’re the only ones who care about that stuff). The issue from within academia is that of "is sociology really a science?", after all, economists are better at maths, no? And the issue for the media is more "what is sociology and what does it do?"
Posted in Social Theory, Sociology | 4 Comments »
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Just clicked on Peter’s comment. I’m not sure if it’s sarcasm, seemed to be strongly worded. The opening of the post seems to have have rubbed folks the wrong way, though I am fairly confident that soc is viewed, at least, as “low consensus.” I viewed my post as a counter argument, so the strong reactions are odd. Anyway, I appreciate the response.
[Reply]
SocProf Reply:
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Well, that was my other interpretation: sarcasm, or strong wording.
That’s interesting because I never thought that the “low consensus” statement would be controversial or rub people the wrong way.
I took your post more as a conversation starter.
Oh well.
[Reply]
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“Hard core interactionism” Hmm, isn’t that an oxymoron? I just can’t see the social constructivists being “hardcore.” That’s my sarcasm.
[Reply]
SocProf Reply:
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Don’t get smart, young man!
[Reply]