Twilight of Sociology

Wall Street Journal ^ | 2 February 2007 | WILFRED M. MCCLAY

[shrinkermd]

This short essay begins with noting the recent death of Seymour Lipset as well as the previous deaths of Phillip Reif and David Reisman. The author then wonders why there are no new leaders.

"...Of course, sociologists are still being trained, books are being published, and university departments of sociology show no sign of going out of business. But the sense of free-wheeling inquiry that drew some of the best minds of the 1950s and 1960s into sociology -- in what appears now to be its golden age -- is no longer in evidence.

Seymour Martin Lipset explored the social forces that limit individual freedom. Is an era of inquiry over? The quick answer would be that there are two equal and opposite culprits. One of them is politics. Sociology fell victim to a dogmatic belief that it was not enough to understand the world; one must also change it. And if, as many sociologists came to believe, all reality was "socially constructed," then nothing was grounded in nature, nothing was justified by tradition or custom, and nothing was to be treated as enduring. All things were provisional, and all could be reshaped, usually along predictable political lines. Thus academic journals and scholarly monographs were given over to supporting the reigning views of race, gender and class -- and fiercely suppressing any inquiry that might challenge these views.

But it is equally the case that many sociologists, while seeking to avoid politicization, fell into the trap of scientism, of thinking that by imitating the methods of the "harder" social sciences, such as economics, they could achieve for sociology the precision, and status, of the natural sciences.

[hinckley buzzard]

The real flaw of sociology as it was understood in the 50's and 60's, pre-postmodernism and feminism and assorted other perversions of the intellectual process, was that it turned out to be a "discipline" in search of a subject matter. Even Lipset's work, which at least had some intellectual rigor, at best came up with more or less self-evident generalizations. And the statistics were very weak. Correlations in the range of .20-.30 and based on large samples were eminently publishable even though they meant in real terms that the researcher had explained perhaps 15% of the variance.

Because sociology in the end lacked content, its scientific efforts fell prey to the predators of the New Left, who saw a vacant house and moved in en masse. This is why there is no such thing today as "social science"-- only a politicized whore dressed up in tawdry imitation of a respectable lady, but whose trappings fool no one upon any sort of serious scrutiny.

[gcruse]

I know this a really dumb question and I apologize for asking it, but are there any practical uses for the study of sociology at all?

[popdonnelly]

but are there any practical uses for the study of sociology at all?

You can use it as a pretense for remaking American society in the leftist image.

[garbanzo]

I sometimes wonder what future generations of scholars will think when they look at the history of late 20th century philosophy and wonder what happened to us - how did this nonsense ever come to be taken seriously by people.

[Republicus2001]

I think the sociology profession also arose at the same time technology began to allow more accurate quantitive study of large population groups...early Edison tab cards through IBM to computers all became devices that allowed true social scientists more accurate measures...the discipline may have been influenced slightly by Marxists in the early Thirties but it was after Stalin that the left retreated enmass into sociology and other "new studies" as a safe cover for marxism. With the flush of the GI Bill I believe a generation of otherwise under-qualified social scientists completely hijacked the profession and turned it into a credential program for welfare administrators.

[colderwater]

Yes there is a very good reason to study sociology. An important subset of social activity is war. And since war is a generally a matter of survival, it is a subject that should be studied to some degree by all gentlemen, military or not.

May I suggest, "The art of war" by Sun Tzu, "The Prince" by Machiavelli, and for modern studies, the work of Colonel Boyd (use Google, or if you are a glutton for punishment, read "Science, Strategy and war" by Frans P.B.Osinga, an exposition of Boyd.)

I suspect the man hating Ladies at Amherst might have a difficulty with this reading list!

C.W.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Hmm, not that I disagree with the assessment of the recent and current state of sociology; and nor do I hold much hope for its future.

However, I have a degree in Sociology (way back I should add) and I never lost my core conservative values while in college. I'll admit I was in the minority. /grin

And I never thought Angela Davis had jack to offer society.

And, I'm sorry, but a psychology degree is still mere scratchy toilet paper, sitting right next to mine on the shelf in the grocery store.

My buddy from those days, who has a psych degree is now working for a weapons manufacturer helping supply our troops with the technology to kill terrorists. While I am but a simple self employed capitalist.

Ah WTH, there were some nice chicks in my department. I didn't have to agree with them, after all I wasn't looking for a wife. /singger

Interestingly, one of my favorite and most infuential profs in the dept predicted the whole mess that the Great Society's welfare system was heading for. Punched a lot of holes in the logic behind some of the most revered aspects of welfare. I don't imagine he'd fit in too well now.

[CatoRenasci]

You are far too kind to sociology, IMHO.

[RightWhale]

That wonderment can probably be fairly answered by looking at other critical historical periods. This is not the first time we have been between philosophies.