Plagarism Fodder (on Foucault and Marcuse)...

[protovack]

What does this mean? Marx was a social scientist...and a historian and a philosopher and an economist...are you trying to patronise his analysis by labelling it 'non-scientific'?

I'm saying that because his lense is so narrow, maybe he should have chosen a field where a very narrow lense is more appropriate. That field is definately not sociology.

I guess I should also point out that the labor theory of value has never really been proven...

I like the idea that all value comes from labor. However, Marx assumes that capitalists don't work and thus his argument is useless.

if a working class person doesn't have the mindset or education to leave their job then that is just as real and concrete a constraint on social mobility as a brick wall.

I'll agree with that.

Now, let's say you are a well paid professional. Couldn't you make the choice to go work in a factory? There is no brick wall stopping you. Likewise, there is no brick wall stopping people from climbing the social ladder.

If you don't have the "mindset" to climb the ladder, then obviously you aren't going to. Is that supposed to surprise me?

People do it all the time, therefore it has already been empirically proven that there is no objective "wall" stopping anyone from climbing the social ladder. All you have to do is look at anyone who is now wealthier than they were before becacuse they got some skills.

There are simply obstacles to be overcome, and if your goal is to overcome those obstacles then you'll probably do it. If you are lazy, it's not going to happen. Once again people talk about socio-economic barriers to mobility in such stark terms.

Not everything can be thought of strictly in terms of personal choice - however anyone who *ignores* personal will or ambition is just blind to reality.

There has also been a massive amount of research on not only class influences on educational attainment (guess the relationship!), but also class influences on getting jobs once you have the education, and on moving up the social heirarchy once you have. None of these relationships are simple, but they exist and are influenced by social factors that actually exist.

I would still say that the major factor in all of this is whether a person really wants to hold off on their temporary urges and desires in favor of later reward...

If you want to 'do sociology' you need to realise that it is a science...you can measure these things and identify structural relationships in the way people's lives get to progress...

True. Theorizing about alienation is not science, it's philosophy. In the real world, most people are not alienated. Some people are. In fact sometimes all of us feel a little alienated in this complex society. Sometimes a professional might feel that his life is meaningless. Maybe a worker hates going to his factory job on monday morning. The world is not black and white. You cannot separate people into the "bourgoise" and "working" classes and then derive complex theories about society from those simplistic divisions.

just saying that people are lazy is the same as dismissing an entire discipline in favour of your own simplistic one line argument.

You're right. People aren't lazy, they're just being forced to sit in their trailer watching their bigscreen TV all night every night by "sociological factors." And that odd single mom who manages to get a babysitter while she goes to night school is just an outlier

It takes just as much work to become a pharmacy technician whether you have a million dollars or a thousand.

There is a long list of minor professions in which you can make at least twice or three times minimum wage. These are jobs that might require 1 or 2 years of training at a community college. If sociological barriers are so significant, then why do people keep entering and graduating from these programs year after year?

The reason is, there are a certain percentage of people who *realize* this fact...and decide to do it. And then there are the rest of people who don't. Again, nothing surprising here.

The point is that social mobility is not determined purely by social factors (note to self: continue watching out for sociology cops)

 

[ebola?]

Two observations:
1. There seems to be equivocation between psychological alienation and objective conditions of estrangement (not to say that these aren't highly related).
2. A straw-man is still being made of sociology. Just because structural factors are highlighted as MOST pertinent does not entail that individual factors do not matter or do not exist. Similarly, just because the proletarian-capitalist wage-labor relationship is the object of focus does not entail that there are other, more complicated class-relations.

ebola

 

[satricion]

I think the point needs to be made here that what we're talking about is social theory. 'X is lazy' is not good social theory.

If you want to go and look at the psychological processes that are involved in behaviour change (such as looking for a new job or whatever) then that's fine, go and do that...but that's not what sociology is doing. Incidentally Protovack, if you do go and look into this sort of psychology, you won't find a 'lazy theory' or empirical work backing up the importance of 'lazyness' to support your ideas.

I agree with Ebola (and have throughout this thread)...but as I said I feel it's necessary to add that you have to argue within the paradigm...within the discipline...sociology is looking at structural factors...it's looking at material relations between social groups, it's looking at the influence of power relationships and the effects of different knowledge structures and ideologies...if you want to talk about individuals that's fine, but that's not what sociology is doing. If you're a sociologist interested in social mobility, you're looking at social factors. That's what sociology is and thats what sociologists are doing. If you don't like it well...go and do something else.

 

[protovack]

Incidentally Protovack, if you do go and look into this sort of psychology, you won't find a 'lazy theory' or empirical work backing up the importance of 'lazyness' to support your ideas.

I don't need an empirical study to show me what I already know from simple observation.

but as I said I feel it's necessary to add that you have to argue within the paradigm...within the discipline...

actually, I don't. I easily could...I just don't want to. That's exactly what I'm trying to say.....the "paradigm" is holding us back from discovering a more realistic picture of society.

I think the point needs to be made here that what we're talking about is social theory. 'X is lazy' is not good social theory.

That's true, it is just my observation. And you have to admit, the facts support my observations. For instance, it is within the realm of possibility for virtually everyone to attend a community college program. Yet only a certain percentage of people do. There is some kind of factor causing those people to do something, I'll call it factor "X." The people who don't do it must lack factor "X." I will now define factor X as "ambition" or "lack of laziness."

It doesn't really matter what word I apply to the concept. Lazy is just a quick way of saying, "lacking in the attribute that causes other people to go learn something useful."


Take another example. Some sociology majors will drop out after 2 years in undergrad, while others like ebola will go on to become sociology professors. What is the difference between ebola and the others?

The difference is that ebola made the choice that he would go on to graduate school, whereas others did not.

Similarily, I think social mobility can be seen in part in terms of personal choice (as long as there are no significant barriers to mobility).

sociology is looking at structural factors...it's looking at material relations between social groups, it's looking at the influence of power relationships and the effects of different knowledge structures and ideologies...

I would say that sociology has already covered that stuff enough. Stop beating a dead horse.

if you want to talk about individuals that's fine, but that's not what sociology is doing.

why is sociology NOT doing that? That's overlooking something pretty significant.

That's what sociology is and thats what sociologists are doing. If you don't like it well...go and do something else.

I see your point....you are saying that a discipline has to define itself at some point. However, I think that in definining itself in that limited way, the field fences itself in to a certain way of thinking.

Here is my basic point:

You keep on telling me that I'm making a straw-man out of sociology, and that it isn't the job of sociology to be looking at the individual.

However, a sociologist wants to be recognized as a scientist, right? Well, in science you have to look at all the factors and then develop a model of how things work based on those things.

In chemistry, you study matter on a molecular level. However many properties of matter manifest themselves on a macro-level. For example, we categorize chemicals according to boiling points, stability, viscosity, etc. These are all things that we can directly observe without really thinking. However when you dig deeper, you find that all those macro-level properties are directly determined by atomic and molecular structure. We find that there is a perfectly logical connection between the shapes and charges of molecules and atoms, and their macro-level properties.

Similarly, if a field such as sociology wants to be a real science, it must approach reality in a similar way. Clearly, society itself is a macro-level phenomenon. So then, what are the micro-level properties that determine this macro-level structure? The answer is the individual.

Just as the key to understanding the boiling point of water lies in the structure of H2O, the key to understanding society lies in the individual.

So, you can see that from my perspective, it sounds totally strange to set aside sociology as a field that "only looks at macro-level phenomena" as if that is somehow a "selling feature" of sociology. To me all that does is artificially limit our understanding.

To understand society, I think we need to look at what is essentially a huge collection of humans individuals, and then ask ourselves how their interactions and behaviors come together to determine the structure of society.

Unfortunately, I think sometimes we shy away from looking at the details because they are often messy. Instead, sociology comes up with these gleaming, internally consistent theories of social relations where the details aren't even considered. I mean, imagine if chemists just stopped studying matter after they finished categorizing everything according to macro-level properties?

Psychology and Sociology are one field, they just don't realize it yet.

 

[satricion]

I don't need an empirical study to show me what I already know from simple observation.

I see...so you know better than everyone doing research?

That's true, it is just my observation. And you have to admit, the facts support my observations.

Actually no...the facts don't support your observations...that's why there's no 'lazy theory'...because after research into the issue, nobody agrees with you. Your theory is just a taken for granted assumption that coincides perfectly with the dominant ideology specific to capitalist society.

Take another example. Some sociology majors will drop out after 2 years in undergrad, while others like ebola will go on to become sociology professors. What is the difference between ebola and the others?

The difference is that ebola made the choice that he would go on to graduate school, whereas others did not.

Similarily, I think social mobility can be seen in part in terms of personal choice (as long as there are no significant barriers to mobility).

Uh...there are lots of people researching this...sociologists and psychologists...none of them agree with you...that's why there's no 'lazy theory'...can't you see this? You think the facts point to your ideas self-evidently...they don't...this isn't how social mobility works...people have been studying it for ages.

So, you can see that from my perspective, it sounds totally strange to set aside sociology as a field that "only looks at macro-level phenomena" as if that is somehow a "selling feature" of sociology. To me all that does is artificially limit our understanding.

See my discussion below...

To understand society, I think we need to look at what is essentially a huge collection of humans individuals, and then ask ourselves how their interactions and behaviors come together to determine the structure of society.

Unfortunately, I think sometimes we shy away from looking at the details because they are often messy. Instead, sociology comes up with these gleaming, internally consistent theories of social relations where the details aren't even considered. I mean, imagine if chemists just stopped studying matter after they finished categorizing everything according to macro-level properties?

This isn't what sociology is like...I'm not the one that has been accusing you of building a straw man out of the discipline, but I will now. Sociology tests theories empirically. That's what science is.

And I do think you have to draw lines between disciplines for reasons I'll discuss below...

Psychology and Sociology are one field, they just don't realize it yet.

This couldn't be more wrong! Seriously...I've studied them both and I can tell you that a lot of the time you have to have serious multiple personality disorder just to pass exams.

Sociology looks at issues (such as social mobility) in terms of structual factors in society. Psychology looks at them in terms of internal cognitive processes.

The argument of sociology (and my argument as well) is that individualising issues like social mobility you obscure the real processes that are going on. That's not to say psychology is useless, but much of the time sociology analyses psychology as part of the system of social control that exists in society (Foucualt did a lot of this).

I think psychology has it's place...looking at memory processing, perceptual construction, neuropsychological study, treating certain disorders...but psychology and sociology are NOT the same discipline. I would even argue they are less similar than say physics and geology. Sociology and psychology clash on a fundamental basis when dealing with many many issues.

Sociology does look at individual(ish) factors when it comes to social mobility sometimes. For example, I think a good macro/micro level bridge in the discipline is social network analysis, where the structures of people's social networks are analysed (often using mathematical techniques way beyond my understanding) to provide ways that issues like class actually influence people in the world. But the object of study in social network analysis remains structure! It is nothing to do with people's lazyness...it's not even to do with their thoughts...it's about the social structure they live in, and this idea is operationalised on a micro level by analysing patterns and structures of social relationships.

Jurgen Habermas (probably the most famous living sociologist at the moment) has also written a lot about how disciplines need to collaborate in order to further advance society (incidentally, Habermas is the last (?) of the Frankfurt School). But neither Habermas or myself (or indeed Ebola should you ask him) will ever argue that sociology and psychology are the same discipline.

In summary:

Your arguments are not only empirically unsupported, but also reflect the dominant ideology of capitalist society, regardless of how self-evidently true you think they are.

Sociology and psychology are not the same discipline because they rest on fundamentally different paradigmatic ground. Sociology studies the social construction of scientific knowledge (especially psychology) whereas psychology presents itself as objective truth (something that many people argue impossible in the social sciences...I don't entirely agree). This is not a good combination. In some ways it's like saying that religion and rational science are the same thing.

Sociology and psychology are studying things as different as light beams and rocks. Internal cognitive process are NOT the same as social processes.

 

[ebola?]

>>The people who don't do it must lack factor "X." I will now define factor X as "ambition" or "lack of laziness." >>

The social scientist must also ask, what factors are pertinent in determining X?

>>Take another example. Some sociology majors will drop out after 2 years in undergrad, while others like ebola will go on to become sociology professors. What is the difference between ebola and the others?>>

The difference is ALSO that ebola came from a middle-class background and thus was not impelled to work during school and thus found it easier to maintain high grades, participate in research, etc.

>>
Similarily, I think social mobility can be seen in part in terms of personal choice (as long as there are no significant barriers to mobility).
>>

Yes, of course its IN PART personal choice. Sociology asks what OTHER factors are pertinent.

>>I would say that sociology has already covered that stuff enough. Stop beating a dead horse.>>

The horse lives; the world is not fully understood, nor can it be.

>>
Similarly, if a field such as sociology wants to be a real science, it must approach reality in a similar way. Clearly, society itself is a macro-level phenomenon. So then, what are the micro-level properties that determine this macro-level structure? The answer is the individual.>>

You are taking ON ASSUMPTION the idea that the universe is reductionist (on ontological terms). I must ask you, can all the laws, tendencies, and theories in biology be reduced to quantum-mechanical phenomena?

I begin from the converse assumption, that different levels of analysis, looking at different levels of complexity, reveal different logics which are irreducible to one another. For sociology, this assumption is shown false when psychological and biological explanations prove adequate.

Sociology pretty much shed the reductionist model of society with Durkheim (and contra Adam Smith).

>>Psychology and Sociology are one field, they just don't realize it yet.>>

All disciplinary lines are in some senses arbitrary and in other senses useful.

ebola
np: isis

 

[protovack]

Uh...there are lots of people researching this...sociologists and psychologists...none of them agree with you...that's why there's no 'lazy theory'...can't you see this? You think the facts point to your ideas self-evidently...they don't...this isn't how social mobility works...people have been studying it for ages.

Maybe those who arrive at so-called "capitalist" conclusions are shunned from the discipline, because their conclusions do not gel with the established sociological order. Maybe not.

Maybe there is a "lazy" theory and you just haven't read about it. Actually if you asked me four years ago, I would have repeated the typical line that there are these "power structures" in society that, intentionally or not, keep a certain percentage of people in poverty because that is necessary for the affluent to stay affluent. Today, I question my own beliefs more, which has led me to become jaded about certain ideas, and more open to others. It's never good to hold on to one theory just because it is "far-reaching" or "elegant." Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one - that some people just can't, won't, or never learned to work hard. Now, I'm very interested in the details of how people come to behave this way, and the answers must come from an interdisciplinary approach.

Sociology tests theories empirically. That's what science is.

Show me one sociology experiment that empirically proved something, please.

Sociology looks at issues (such as social mobility) in terms of structual factors in society. Psychology looks at them in terms of internal cognitive processes.

What about the degree to which the psyche determines social mobility? The degree to which society determines psyche? Psyche determines society? Sociology and Psychology are both sub-disciplines of the study of humans or "the humanities."

The argument of sociology (and my argument as well) is that individualising issues like social mobility you obscure the real processes that are going on.

So macro-level phenomena are the only "real" processes that are "going on"? That is not science, it is you making an assertion and making it sound as if all of sociology believes the same thing. I would argue that *too much* of sociology looks only at structural factors.

Sociology and psychology clash on a fundamental basis when dealing with many many issues.

I would say that they meet on the most fundamental level.

I think a good macro/micro level bridge in the discipline is social network analysis, where the structures of people's social networks are analysed (often using mathematical techniques way beyond my understanding) to provide ways that issues like class actually influence people in the world.

Sounds like a cool idea. Like maybe how even if you are poor, if you happen to know some middle-class folks from your church or school, or are living in a better area, your horizons are a bit broader than if you are poor and live in the projects. Yes, I am familiar with these kinds of theories, and they are interesting.

However they kind of prove my point - that in reality, class barriers are not objective concrete walls. Significant class-mixing and social mobility occurs in everyday life. The big question is why and how this occurs. You cannot have a good theory without looking at individual aspirations and motivation. For example, how did the poor family get a chance to move out of the ghetto and into a better neighborhood with better schools? Probably because the mom was smart enough to realize that her and her children would be better off. What did she do to accomplish her goal? She probably went to night classes, maybe got a sister or grandparent to babysit and help with the kids, struggled for a while, but eventually got some job training and went on to make some more money. The why and how of this process is a big sociological question, but it seems that in some circles these questions are taboo because they would force sociologists to look at individual factors.

Which is too bad, because in science, you make observations and then attempt to explain them. Science is NOT, as you said before, just testing theories empirically. You make it sound as if you can just make up a theory and then try to "test" it. No, that's not how it works. Your hypothesis must be informed by your observations. THEN you test.

But the object of study in social network analysis remains structure! It is nothing to do with people's lazyness...it's not even to do with their thoughts...it's about the social structure they live in, and this idea is operationalised on a micro level by analysing patterns and structures of social relationships.

Obviously we agree on some level because you brought up social network analysis. You said that this idea is operationalised on a micro level by analyzing patterns and structures of social relationships. Well that's all fine and good, except you are missing the analysis part. You can look at where someone is situated in the social structure all you want, but to complete the picture you have to look at WHY they are there in the first place. And this may directly stem from the "thoughts" that you so quickly brushed aside.

Your arguments are not only empirically unsupported, but also reflect the dominant ideology of capitalist society, regardless of how self-evidently true you think they are.

My ideology does not reflect the "dominant ideology of capitalist society," because this is merely a cliche generated from within sociological circles with their own ideology. I have no great love of capitalism. I think it works, and it works best when greed is restrained. Beyond that, I am not tied to any specific ideology.

 

[protovack]

The difference is ALSO that ebola came from a middle-class background and thus was not impelled to work during school and thus found it easier to maintain high grades, participate in research, etc.

Your argument is plagued by an infinite regress problem. However it is clear that social mobility occurs, which solves that problem nicely

You are taking ON ASSUMPTION the idea that the universe is reductionist (on ontological terms). I must ask you, can all the laws, tendencies, and theories in biology be reduced to quantum-mechanical phenomena?

I assume only due to lack of a better idea. It seems that everytime we investigate a natural phenomenon, it turns out to be reducible. Therefore, I'm a reductionist until I find something that isn't reducible.

As the resident reductionist, YOU have to prove to ME that something isn't reducible. That's why it's cool to be a reductionist

Sociology pretty much shed the reductionist model of society with Durkheim (and contra Adam Smith).

Well it would be ridiculous to conduct your investigations according to one strict view of the universe.

But seriously, this thread has nothing to do with reductionism. It is not "reductionist" to argue that individual behavior and thought is significant to the study of society, any more than it is "reductionist" to believe in atoms.

What I find funny about this thread is the continual knee-jerk reaction against any view that is slightly contrary to the established sociological order, which clearly still bears the political imprint left on it by the initial (ugly) phases of industrialization. At that time, sociology became the place where people would go to study "what went wrong." Because of the rampant poverty and aristocratic control, sociology became a discipline of radicals dedicated to revolutionary ideas and theories which delegitimized the ruling classes. It was a natural response to extreme injustice.

If sociology is to be considered a science, it must rid itself of that legacy and return to the study of society in a scientific manner. There is no reason that I can see to remain tied to that old ideology, other than tradition and convention.

 

[ebola?]

>>Show me one sociology experiment that empirically proved something, please.
>>

1. Experiments are rare in sociology, with the exception of social psychology (the Milgrim experiment is pretty cool).
2. Off the top of my head/bookmark list:

Dube, Arindrajit, B. Eidlin and B. Lester – “The Impact of Wal-Mart Growth on Earnings throughout the Retail Sector in Urban and Rural Counties”

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=iir

>>Your argument is plagued by an infinite regress problem. However it is clear that social mobility occurs, which solves that problem nicely>>

1. This isn't a problem. When described on causal terms, reality IS an infinite regress.
2. How does social mobility solve the problem?

>>
As the resident reductionist, YOU have to prove to ME that something isn't reducible. That's why it's cool to be a reductionist
>>

Okay...I guess there's nothing to be said. I'll be the resident...er...epistemological agnostic.

>>Well it would be ridiculous to conduct your investigations according to one strict view of the universe.>>

What I should have added is that there are multiple epistemologies that aren't individualistically reductionist and that none of these epistemologies claim to capture the totality of social being, as to do so would be impossible (this was implied in my last post).

You're being awful discharitable to opposing arguments, disregarding all nuance I attempt to put forth. I'd like to say that this is uncharacteristic of you. . . .
>>At that time, sociology became the place where people would go to study "what went wrong." Because of the rampant poverty and aristocratic control, sociology became a discipline of radicals dedicated to revolutionary ideas and theories which delegitimized the ruling classes. It was a natural response to extreme injustice.>>

Your view of the history of sociology is myopic, and is really only restricted to post-1960s sociology, when Marx was reclaimed due to influence from bottom-up social movements.

Even when not individualistically reductionist, sociology was often deployed (but often not as well) in the interest of justifying the dominant order.

>>
If sociology is to be considered a science, it must rid itself of that legacy and return to the study of society in a scientific manner. There is no reason that I can see to remain tied to that old ideology, other than tradition and convention.>>

We're at the point where you'll need to define "Scienece". In may turn out that sociology is not a science on your terms.

ebola

 

[satricion]

1. Sociology rarely does experiments. You don't do experiments in sociology because it's very hard to study social processes within an experimental paradigm. Sociology does a lot of survey research, and some strands do mostly qualitative research because of the difficulty putting certain social processes into quantitative terms. Social network analysis is almost exclusively quantitative, looking at the nature, number and pattern of relationships. It also looks at actions of social process according to network analysis. I won't go into exactly what that looks like because social network analysis is often an interdisciplinary effort that sociologists do with mathematicians, meaning basically that I don't understand some of what they do.

You don't have to do experiments to do research. For example you can ask the question, does gender influence attitudes towards, say, abortion? Then you go out and do a survey (or, more likely, you use data from the international social science surveys that are conducted across the world every year that cover this and many other issues), and you find that, say, women are ten times as likely to be against abortion. So then, unless you want to posit a causal relationship that states that attitudes towards abortion influences gender, you can say that gender influences attitudes towards abortion. Or you might do some more statistical analysis and find that in actual fact, there is a mediating factor between gender and attitudes to abortion, namely religion. So you might find that the real influence here is religiosity, and that more women are against abortion because these days women tend to be more religious than men (I'm making this up as I go along but from memory I think this is the case). You can ask the same question using class, educational status, whatever (these are all very basic examples). This is still valid research...it's not experimental though.

Psychology does experiments all the time. Most of the stuff I'm thinking about in refuting your 'lazy theory' comes from psychology. The reason for this is that you want to talk about individual factors in social mobility. That's fine. Psychology has done heaps of work on things like behavioural intention, motivation, and so on. As I mentioned, I've studied both psychology and sociology (I did a double degree, so I have a degree in both.) Go and look at the behavioural intention literature and whatever else in psych you think is relevant. You won't find your 'some people are just lazy' theory.

2. Show you a sociology experiment that empirically proved something? Why should I have to defend the validity of an entire discipline to you? Sociology is a social science. It does empirical work all the time. The sort of work I described above gets done all the time. You want an example of some good emprical work I read in sociology recently?

One of the most interesting papers I've read recently was a study of comparative birth rates across a number of countries. Statistical analysis found that the most influential factors in determining the birthrate of the (modern, industrialised) countries analysed were social norms with regard to the family and the way they interacted with government and private sector provision of childcare.

I found this interesting because in Australia where I live the treasurer (Peter Costello) keeps wanting to encourage women to have more babies, but the government doesn't like funding childcare and so on because of their neoliberal ideals. This research indicates his efforts are misguided.

Sociology is real. It studies things. I really don't feel that I should have to defend the discipline as a whole any more than I feel I should have to defend physics. Social processes exist. That's what sociology studies. It does it with empirical work. That's why it's a science. You want to look at individual cognition? That's fine, go and do psychology. Individual cognitive processes also exist and that's what psychology studies.

Sociology and psychology do not 'meet on a fundamental level'. You misunderstand the assumptions behind both disciplines by asserting this. Sociology and psychology meet on a fundamental level to the same extent that physics and geology meet on a fundamental level. They're still studying the world, but looking at different things.

3. You misunderstand social network analysis. It's not about 'broad horizons'. It's about objectively existing social resources. A person's social network doesn't just determine their 'horizons' (which is a hazy and basically meaningless term). A person's social network determins the objectively existing resources that they can call upon in order to do things. Research operationalising class in social network analysis looks at the influence of 'contacts' on getting certain jobs. The conclusions of this (empirical) work is that there are certain jobs you can't get if you don't have certain kinds of ties, and certain ties you can't get if you're not in certain situations. This is what social network analysis is. It's not looking at some meaningless ideas about 'broad horizons' or whatever. It's looking at social structure, which is as real as a brick wall.

Social network analysis does look at why people are in certain positions. Your unfamiliarity with the literature means your arguments are aimed in totally the wrong direction.

4. Your ideology represents the dominant ideology of capitalist society. I can say this because I've read the empirical work that asks the question 'what do most people think about how the world works?' and most people (in capitalist societies) think like you. That's what a dominant ideology is. People didn't always have this individualist view of the world. It is specific to capitalism and is very effective in legitimising class relations within it. I'm not just making this up. Again, something that sociological research has taught us.

How would you argue against this? I mean, you can't argue that class relations exist. Classes exist and they relate to each other in certain ways. Some people are poor and some are rich. If you think that's okay well good...you can think that...the statement here is that your ideology serves to legitimate the class relations that exist. What you say after that is entirely a value judgement. If you want you can say 'good, these class relationships exist and they are how I think things should be'. I personally wouldn't agree with you, but by saying that certain ideologies relate in certain ways to certain social processes, you make no value judgement about that process any more than you make a value judgement about what happens to light when you shine it through a prism when you're doing high school physics.


You find this thread funny?

I personally find it a little bemusing that you clearly have very little familiarity with sociological theory or research, and yet you think you can dismiss the validity of an entire discipline of research with your 'lazy theory'. I'm not sure why you decided to contribute to this thread if this is all you have to argue. I personally thought the thread would die pretty quickly since me and Ebola seem to be the only sociology nerds big enough to want to talk about Marcuse and Foucault on the internet.

The interplay between the meaning generated by research when it's conducted in different theoretical contexts is a huge issue in sociology, especially after Foucault and others started shaking up the old school modernist assumptions of the Frankfurt school. I think if you want to argue against the validity of the empirical research that sociology does, this would be a good place to start.

Just claiming that sociology doesn't do worthwhile empirical research is arrogant and incorrect.

(ps Ebola's point about sociology often supporting the dominant ideology is pertinent...Talcott Parsons is of course the guy who springs to mind here)

 

[protovack]

You misunderstand social network analysis. It's not about 'broad horizons'. It's about objectively existing social resources. A person's social network doesn't just determine their 'horizons' (which is a hazy and basically meaningless term).

Society does not objectively "exist" outside of the people who create it. The social networks and resources you speak of were all created, built, and organized by people. In general, the people who participate in the building of these structures are the ones who reap the benefits derived from them.

A person's social network determines the objectively existing resources that they can call upon in order to do things.

Well, of course that is true.

The conclusions of this (empirical) work is that there are certain jobs you can't get if you don't have certain kinds of ties, and certain ties you can't get if you're not in certain situations.

Also true, but not exactly a new idea. Lot's of people make their own contacts and build social ties for themselves. Is it appropriate to ignore such behavior?

This is what social network analysis is. It's not looking at some meaningless ideas about 'broad horizons' or whatever. It's looking at social structure, which is as real as a brick wall.

Yes, and social structure is created by the constituents of society. Unless you believe for some reason that "social structures" exist independent and prior to the people who create them.

Your ideology represents the dominant ideology of capitalist society. I can say this because I've read the empirical work that asks the question 'what do most people think about how the world works?' and most people (in capitalist societies) think like you.

I would contend that most people in the world have an accurate view of how the world works. After all, they do live in it. People living under soviet communism knew that something was wrong. They knew how the world *should* work and they wondered why it didn't work like that in Russia. They wondered why they couldn't start a business or take control of their own destiny (like us who live in a capitalist society).

People didn't always have this individualist view of the world. It is specific to capitalism and is very effective in legitimising class relations within it.

To assert that my beliefs are somehow directly constructed by the capitalist society I happen to reside in is ridiculous. Wild animals see the world as I do too...does that mean they are greedy capitalists?

'm not just making this up. Again, something that sociological research has taught us.

Taught YOU.

the statement here is that your ideology serves to legitimate the class relations that exist.

Class relations need no legitimization. Class relations are far less important than most people think. Race relations? Sure they are important. Gender relations? Sure. Of course, it is impossible to choose your race or gender. Class, however, has an element of choice in it.

At one point in time, a sociologist might have told me that capitalist ideology serves to legitimize slavery. Well, today we have capitalism but no slavery....so where is the significance in that statement?

but by saying that certain ideologies relate in certain ways to certain social processes, you make no value judgement about that process any more than you make a value judgement about what happens to light when you shine it through a prism when you're doing high school physics.

Certain ideologies relate to social processes? How could I disagree with such a general statement? Fine, my ideology is that I want to eat food, sleep in a warm area, and interact socially and contribute to society. Does anybody have a different ideology?

Just claiming that sociology doesn't do worthwhile empirical research is arrogant and incorrect.

OK, some basic sociological research is worthwile. I take issue with the purely theoretical pontificating

I personally find it a little bemusing that you clearly have very little familiarity with sociological theory or research, and yet you think you can dismiss the validity of an entire discipline of research with your 'lazy theory'.

I admit that my formal training in sociology is limited to basic intro classes. However, I think extensively about the subject. For you to point out my lack of familiarity with "theory or research" is kind of cheap, considering that I know alot more about sociology than the average person.

I'm not sure why you decided to contribute to this thread if this is all you have to argue.

We've taken this discussion all the way from Marx and alienation to where we are now. And all you can do is reduce the entirety of my thoughts to "lazy theory"? If I knew that was all that would happen, maybe I would've kept my thoughts to myself.

I personally thought the thread would die pretty quickly since me and Ebola seem to be the only sociology nerds big enough to want to talk about Marcuse and Foucault on the internet.

Sorry I ruined your semantic interplay but sometimes it takes a different perspective to push the conversation in a new direction. I wasn't aware that sociology discussion was to be conducted only by "sociology nerds."

Most of the arguments you've put forth in this thread have been citations of other people's thoughts...and you continue to present arguments while trying to "hide" your own opinions on the matter.

I say, don't worry about it! It's OK...you can tell me what you think...

 

[satricion]

"Society does not objectively "exist" outside of the people who create it. The social networks and resources you speak of were all created, built, and organized by people. In general, the people who participate in the building of these structures are the ones who reap the benefits derived from them."

You can not analyse society by reducing it to individual cognitive processes. This kind of reductionism doesn't work. It doesn't cast any light on why, to take my earlier example, women might be more against abortion.

"Also true, but not exactly a new idea. Lot's of people make their own contacts and build social ties for themselves. Is it appropriate to ignore such behavior?"

Social network analysis (and sociology generally) doesn't ignore that behaviour. It looks at the conditions that allow it to happen.

"Yes, and social structure is created by the constituents of society. Unless you believe for some reason that "social structures" exist independent and prior to the people who create them. "

Yes, social structure does exist prior to the people who create it. We are born into a world that already has certain norms and certain structural relations within it, and that is the context that we must develop in.

"To assert that my beliefs are somehow directly constructed by the capitalist society I happen to reside in is ridiculous. Wild animals see the world as I do too...does that mean they are greedy capitalists?"

Are you saying that wild animals attribute social mobility to individual cognitive processes? I mean I'm not trying to be a dick here but you know...people three hundred years ago didn't think like you...

"Taught YOU."

Well alright yes taught me...but I mean, they've taught me that because I've read the research...it's not just that I happen to be gullible and two hundred years of social science have 'tricked' me into believing some made up crap...

"Class relations need no legitimization. Class relations are far less important than most people think. Race relations? Sure they are important. Gender relations? Sure. Of course, it is impossible to choose your race or gender. Class, however, has an element of choice in it."

Of course class relations need legitimation. If class relationships weren't legitimate we'd have a revolution because people wouldn't stand for it. People stand for the way things are because they think they're fair. That's what a dominant, legitimising ideology is. Everything needs legitimisation or we'd get rid of it.

"At one point in time, a sociologist might have told me that capitalist ideology serves to legitimize slavery. Well, today we have capitalism but no slavery....so where is the significance in that statement?"

Capitalist ideology doesn't support slavery. It's against the liberalist ideology that is common to capitalist societies. That's one of the reasons we don't have slavery..."all men are created equal"? That's liberalism right there.

"Certain ideologies relate to social processes? How could I disagree with such a general statement? Fine, my ideology is that I want to eat food, sleep in a warm area, and interact socially and contribute to society. Does anybody have a different ideology?"

That's not what ideology is, and I think you know that, especially given that you've taken introductory sociology classes...that should be one of the basic things you're taught.

"Most of the arguments you've put forth in this thread have been citations of other people's thoughts...and you continue to present arguments while trying to "hide" your own opinions on the matter."

You're not attacking me...you're attacking sociology as a discipline, so I'm providing the answers that I think sociology would give if we anthropomorphised. If you want to attack my opinions that's fine I'll give them, but I'll support them with empirical research because I think that's a good way of going about things. In fact, you can henceforth assume that all the opinions I've provided are my own as well. But As I said I'm defending sociology as a discipline from the straw man argument you've presented based on your introductory sociology courses. I don't care that you know more than the average person.

And what do you have to say to my pointing out that your 'lazy theory' isn't supported by any evidence from psychology either? Are you going to dismiss that as a discipline too because the results of its emprical work don't support your preconceptions about how the world works?

 

[ebola?]

>>Society does not objectively "exist" outside of the people who create it. The social networks and resources you speak of were all created, built, and organized by people. In general, the people who participate in the building of these structures are the ones who reap the benefits derived from them.>>

And yet people do not exist outside the social structures in which they find themselves. They participate in reproducing or changing social structure beginning from the social structure into which they are born.

In short, neither the individual nor society may be dismissed.

>>To assert that my beliefs are somehow directly constructed by the capitalist society I happen to reside in is ridiculous. >>

To assert that beliefs arise independently of social structure and stand immutable is ridiculous. Even a cursory look at even recorded history is sufficient to dispel this notion.

>>Class relations need no legitimization. >>

O rly?
I think its interesting to ask why workers in the global South and many in the North... and the lumpen-prole's... will tolerate a system of private property that bars them subsistence, let alone the full value of the social product, in the face of the immense wealth they create.

ebola
np: fucking isis

 

[protovack]

Yes, social structure does exist prior to the people who create it. We are born into a world that already has certain norms and certain structural relations within it

And how did those structures get there?

Are you saying that wild animals attribute social mobility to individual cognitive processes?

No, I'm saying that humans live in the same world as animals, where to survive you must work hard. The key word there is "survive."

Capitalist ideology doesn't support slavery.

OK, if you include the liberal ideology in with capitalism, you're right. But during slavery, I think a lot of capitalists would probably tell you that slavery was OK.

And what do you have to say to my pointing out that your 'lazy theory' isn't supported by any evidence from psychology either?

My "lazy theory" as you call it may have some good evidence of which you aren't aware. And it's not exactly a "theory"....it's just a notion I have about things....something to be investigated. If you look at 1000 people living in one poor neighborhood, what percentage of them are consistently working towards the goal of getting out of poverty, vs how many are simply in neutral, not thinking about bettering themsevles? What factors are involved here? Intelligence? Family history? Medical costs or disasters?

The single point that you have failed to address so far is the existence of upward social mobility. We know it exists yet for some reason you can't come up with a good reason for it beyond their current "social network" or other vague "advantages" that they have over others living right next to them.

Obviously there is upward and downward mobility. But merely analyzing social networks and socio-economic status as a static "attribute" of a household is meaningless. The interesting stuff comes when you look at change - either upward or downward social mobility. It can't all be explained away by hurricanes and heart attacks, or lottery wins and lucky breaks. Since you are familiar with the literature, maybe you could fill me in on some of the most interesting research on upward mobility.

 

[protovack]

I think its interesting to ask why workers in the global South and many in the North... and the lumpen-prole's... will tolerate a system of private property that bars them subsistence

I think it is probably because they are subsisting just fine. It's just that their situation is not *improving*.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was in the best interest of everyone to have a healthy workforce.

 

[satricion]

"OK, if you include the liberal ideology in with capitalism, you're right. But during slavery, I think a lot of capitalists would probably tell you that slavery was OK."

Of course I include the liberal ideology in with capitalism...it's a vital part of capitalism's dominant ideology...just in case you want what I'm talking about explained...

In capitalism, there exists a certain set of class relationships. Simplified for the purposes of this discussion, it's enough to say that in capitalism (same as in every other society in human history), some people are rich and some people are poor.

Now, this needs something to legitimise it or people wouldn't stand for it. There would be a revolution and the poor people, who vastly outnumber the rich, would shoot all the rich people and take all their stuff. So there needs to be some kind of system of beliefs that makes all this fair.

Along comes the ideology that you are currently representing. Inequality is okay if it is natural. If poor people are poor because they're just less talented and motivated than rich people. So if we want a good society, all we have to do is allow the free market to decide who gets rich and who doesn't because as long as we have no official barriers to people getting rich, those who get rich will be those who deserve it. And poor people will be poor because they're just crap.

This is part of liberalism. One of the ideas here (the whole 'everyone is created equal' idea) is that everyone gets an equal chance at doing well and those that don't do well are just less good.

This ideology legitimates the free market so that capitalists can continue to make money. It furthermore legitimates social inequality (which tends to increase as you free up the market), and gives the poor something to aspire to.

Contrast this to the legitimate ideology in say the middle ages which was largely built on religion. The king was the king because god ordained it, and the peasant was the peasant because god ordained it. This ideology also legitimates the social order at the time, and allows for control over the peasants through the church.

So now you've got a working definition of (very roughly) what a dominant ideology actually is.

Sociology's argument is that this conception of how society works ignores the context into which people are born. People don't get an equal chance in life. They are conditioned by their context. This is why the poor do less well at school, why they find it harder to get a job, why their health is less good, and so on. Now if you want to argue that there are individual differences in people who get certain jobs then that's fine...go and do some psychology and see if you can figure out what they are. But we're doing something different here. We're looking at social processes. Individual cognition won't account for the systematic social processes governing social mobility.

"I think it is probably because they are subsisting just fine. It's just that their situation is not *improving*."

Right...why isn't it improving? I mean, society produces more and more all the time, so why aren't we working less? Why don't we have less poverty and inequality? Why don't the poor take more than they get now?

Social mobility is a social process. Motivation is a psychological process. You can go and look at the psychology literature on motivation if you like, that's fine. But it still won't answer the questions sociology is addressing, because the disciplines are looking at fundamentally different things.

Take my previous example of attitudes towards abortion. Studying individuals won't tell you why women are less in favour of abortion than men. What are you going to do, look at the X chromosome to see if you can find an 'against abortion' gene? If a group of people that vary according to some social attribute (like gender or class) vary systematically in a certain way, then it makes sense to theorise that this social attribute has an influence. So if lower class people do less well at school or find it harder to get jobs or whatever, then it makes sense to look to this attribute for an explanation. That's what sociology is doing.

"Obviously there is upward and downward mobility. But merely analyzing social networks and socio-economic status as a static "attribute" of a household is meaningless. The interesting stuff comes when you look at change - either upward or downward social mobility. It can't all be explained away by hurricanes and heart attacks, or lottery wins and lucky breaks. Since you are familiar with the literature, maybe you could fill me in on some of the most interesting research on upward mobility."

Um, no it isn't meaningless...it exerts an empirically measurable effect on social mobility...to say it's meaningless is just...wrong. Emprically, intuitively...wrong.

You want to know about upward mobility? Upwardly mobile people go to better schools, have more educated parents, and so on. People who don't achieve social mobility live in contexts that encourage learned helplessness, in social norms that don't encourage educational attainment and in material conditions that make life more difficult. This is the real world.

"My "lazy theory" as you call it may have some good evidence of which you aren't aware. And it's not exactly a "theory"....it's just a notion I have about things....something to be investigated."

It's been investigated...plenty of work has been done on intelligence, motivation, behavioural intention, planned behaviour, and so on. "X is lazy" sheds no light on anything, despite the fact that you happen to firmly believe it does. I mean you know, maybe there is some huge well respected 'lazy theory' out there...I would find it intriguing that I've gone through five years of university study in psychology and sociology and not encountered it, but if you find it then by all means let me know.

I personally am just starting work on my sociology honours thesis. Both my parents are university educated, my mother has a masters and my father has a Phd. I was brought up in conditions of relative material comfort in a context that valued educational attainment above all else. My brother is at uni as well. I am the norm in this regard. There are anomalies but sociology (like psychology) is about generalisations.

My best friend is the first in his family to go to university. Both of his parents are dead set working class. His mother and father split up and his mother developed a gambling problem running up massive debts on his credit card. He had to work a lot to support this, and didn't receive much encouragement from his family with regards to his education. He fails subjects and has low self-esteem with regards to academic achievement, despite the fact that if he has time he can easily pull off better grades than me, even when he's handing in papers a week late. Whether or not he'll graduate is iffy. The difference between he and I? Social context.

You can measure how educational attainment varies according to class, how many books a person had in their house when they were growing up, the educational attainment of their parents, etc etc. All these are social processes.

I just think it's ridiculous that you're dismissing an entire discipline (two entire disciplines if you count your dismissal of the absence of your lazy theory in psychology) because you claim that social context is reducable to individual factors (which it isn't, both empirically and logically).

I also think it's somewhat closed minded if you to reject the idea that your impressions of how the world works are based on something other than an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, you perfectly reflect the dominant ideology of our era. Do you think peasants in the middle ages based their worldview on an accurate reflection of reality too?

 

[satricion]

Ps:

With regards to slavery!

Slavery had a legitimising ideology too. That blacks are inferior and good only as work animals, not really human. So they're not created equal and we can exploit them.

However, slavery is only good for certain kinds of production. You can't enslave someone and make them into an accountant because slaves have no initiative, creativity or motivation to learn, because they're slaves and they don't care. They only do what they have to.

Production became more complicated...technology started to overtake old methods...the south, with its slave economy was no longer efficient...the dominant ideology started to die as the material conditions for its existence faded away. The capitalist ideology that I've outlined above became more important as free market industrialism took over the country, delegitimising the 'black people are animals' idea.

Now unless you want to state that some individuals had some specific cognitive bias away from slavery that only just happened to mainfest itself at this time in the North of the US, maybe you'll think about this and see the merit in such reasoning?

 

[protovack]

Since this is the "sociology" thread now...ebola I thought you might find this interesting...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_200307/ai_n9245319

I argue that the relationship between schooling and media representations of vocational and cultural aspirations has become symbiotic [...] so school learning is organized around behaviors required by types of bureaucratic work, as well as the rewards offered by consumer society forperformance according to established corporate norms. [...] The student remembers little or nothing about the content of knowledge... but remembers how to succeed in receiving good grades, gaining admission to a decent college, or university, and how to curry favor with authorities-teachers, counselors, employers. Workingclass kids often fail to get the message right. [...] The result [...] is cultural homelessness.

-Aronowitz, Politics 201-02

Daddy worked his whole life for nothing but the pain Now he walks these empty rooms looking for something to blame You inherit the sins, you inherit the flames

-Springsteen, "Adam Raised a Cain"
Advertisement

The two passages above both present images of working-class people confronted with crushing doubt-doubt about whether accomplishing their goals, goals that have seemed worth working for, goals that much of society has framed as noble and necessary, will ultimately prove liberating or even rewarding. These passages also suggest that a major consequence of this doubt is alienation, not only from the society that has apparently betrayed a person from the workingclass but also from her or himself. In this essay we propose that working-class kids who grow to become permanent members of the academy, as we figure out how to "make it" as professors and as professionals, have also learned other, bleaker lessons about our society, our colleagues, and ourselves. These lessons, we contend, can be profoundly damaging, even immobilizing, on at least three levels for people in the category of "critical education scholars and teachers from poor and working-class backgrounds." On a personal level, we may be learning to despise ourselves or dismiss some of our core values in the process of learning to succeed in the academy. On an interpersonal level, we may be learning that we are communicatively incompetent, or at least significantly less competent at the outset of our careers, and that this incompetence will always constrain our ability to effect change through established scholarly channels. On a societal level, we may be learning, simply in an effort to survive academically, cultural codes and patterns of behavior that cut us - we potential theorists of working-class experience - that cut us off from our working-class roots and thereby further weaken the almost nonexistent fiber of class solidarity in this country.

Authors such as Gloria Anzaldua, Molefi K. Asante, and bell hooks have discussed the ways in which scholarly standards and cultural assumptions in academic institutions in the United States persist in their long tradition of devaluing and marginalizing scholars of color, women scholars, gay and lesbian scholars, and anyone else who does not conform to established (though often unacknowledged) norms. Our purpose in this project is to offer three sets of thematically linked, dialogic narrative accounts of the confusing and complex paths of social mobility and immobility that these institutions have provided us: two straight-identified, white-appearing American men from working-class backgrounds who are now critical education scholars and professors of communication. We are not suggesting that our working-class childhoods can or should give the two of us a right to claim a posteriori a minority status; instead, our hope is that our positions of relative privilege can become a meaningful vantage point for reflecting on the unique interrelationship of social class and higher education - specifically in our cases, of working-class histories and academic lives.

 

[protovack]

this is kind of funny...
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tahb/1983/00000010/00000005/art00001

Abstract:
Stature and education in 214 pairs of adult brothers and 188 pairs of adult sisters were analysed in order to test the hypothesis that in modern stratified societies upward and downward social mobility is selective with respect to body height. Among the 116 male pairs in which the sibs differed in both education and stature, the proportion of pairs in which the taller sib was the better educated (BE) was significantly higher than the proportion of pairs in which the taller sib was the less well educated (LE) of the two. Mean intra-pair difference in stature between the BE and LE brothers was 1·26 cm, and significantly different from zero. In female pairs similar tendencies were noted but deviations from the null hypothesis were not significant. Implications of these findings are discussed.

 

[protovack]

or
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Ho...chType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b8012c8be

Institute of Anthropology, Polish Academy of Sciences.

Stature and educational level achieved were studied in 10 groups of 19-year-old Polish men born in 1967 and examined in 1986. Each group consisted of subjects equated for (1) parental education and occupation, (2) urban-rural residence and (3) number of children in family. It was found that within each group subjects who were secondary school students or graduates were on average taller than their age-mates who by the time of examination had never moved beyond the level of elementary or basic trade school. This result is consistent with the long-debated hypothesis that in industrial societies upward social mobility tends to be selective with regard to body height. Theoretically, such social selection could be expected to inflate the magnitude of social-class differences in stature by adding to them a genetic component. However, a mechanism can be envisaged by which preferential recruitment of taller individuals to upper social strata might indeed be at work and yet produce no differential distribution of genotypes along the social scale.