Re: AUT: Academia....

[Cliff Staples <Clifford_staples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--Boundary_(ID_W1CmFsmLPsS32AD50klyIw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Okay, I can't resist jumping in here.  I have undergraduate degrees in
Sociology and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Sociology (Washington State
University, 1985).  I have been on the faculty here at the University of
North Dakota for 15 years.

Back in the Dark Ages there once was something called "Political Economy"
which, either in its Marxist or non-Marxist variation, made some
sense.  Now (at least in U.S. universities) "political economy" is long
gone (certainly at the undergraduate level), and we now have "Political
Science" on the one hand, and "Economics" on the other.  The former act
like they can talk about power without talking about money while the latter
want to talk about money without talking about power.  They're both nearly
useless (a few radical freaks aside) for any critical understanding of
society.

That task has largely been left to sociologists and philosophers, though
even some literary types have gotten into the act.  But, as was mentioned,
sociology has plenty of mainstream, bourgeois practioners.   The American
Sociological Association is mostly liberal number-crunchers (almost all
wonderfully nice people, careerism aside), and if amongst these there are
those who have serious doubts about capitalism they tend to keep it to
themselves.  There ARE plenty of radicals, however, and you can find a few
hundred of them in the Marxist Section, and elsewhere.

The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois seems to reflect-- as does
much else--  its usefulness to capital, no?   Hence Economics is right up
there, as are the political science policy wonks.  In this regard
sociologists are not to be trusted-- at least since the rollback of the
welfare state in the early 1970s.

One more thing.  Most of the time I'll take the postmodernists and
post-structuralists over the liberal number crunchers.  The former come
bearing radical epistemology, if not always radical left politics, and the
empirical work that at least some of them do can be useful to disrupting
convention.  Indeed, I consider myself a "postmodern Marxist" after the
fashion of the neo-Althusserians associated with the journal Rethinking
Marxism.  Michael might be interested to have a look at Resnick and Wolff's
Knowledge and Class (Chicago, 1987) as well as their Economics: Marxian
Versus Neoclassical (Johns Hopkins, 1987).  I happen to think that
"deconstruction," is a useful way to approach ideology critique (see Brian
Fay's Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits), and that we can
get along just fine without essentialism (a la Rorty).

It occurs to me that maybe my primary motivation for responding to this was
that it was so nice to hear my discipline mentioned, for a change, in a
relatively positive light!

best,

Cliff







At 07:25 AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
>I would certainly think that the social viewpoint has
>something to do with the relative lefty-ness of
>sociologists. However, we shouldn't overestimate the
>effectiveness of their resistance, as I have known
>many sociologists, particularly of the postmodern
>mold, who fall into a sort of ivory tower mentality
>that seems to declaw any left-wing tendencies that
>they might have.
>
>geo
>
>--- Michael Handelman <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This may be overly idealist of me, but do you think
> > one of the reason for sociology seems to be to the
> > left of Poli Sci and Economics, has something to do
> > with the fact that because sociology deals with the
> > study of groups and society, it tends to be
> > *somewhat*
> > innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding the
> > individual (Thatcher's "There is no such thing as
> > society" seems to be about as pure Bourgeois
> > ideology
> > as one can get, and this ideology seems extremely
> > antithetical to sociology).
> >
>
>=====
>"Look for me in the whirlwind - dare to struggle, dare to win"
>=========================
>George J. Ciccariello Maher IV
>St. John's College
>Cambridge
>CB2 1TP
>United Kingdom
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
>http://faith.yahoo.com
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

--Boundary_(ID_W1CmFsmLPsS32AD50klyIw)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<html>
<font size=3>Okay, I can't resist jumping in here.&nbsp; I have
undergraduate degrees in Sociology and Philosophy and a Ph.D. in
Sociology (Washington State University, 1985).&nbsp; I have been on the
faculty here at the University of North Dakota for 15 years.<br><br>
Back in the Dark Ages there once was something called &quot;Political
Economy&quot; which, either in its Marxist or non-Marxist variation, made
some sense.&nbsp; Now (at least in U.S. universities) &quot;political
economy&quot; is long gone (certainly at the undergraduate level), and we
now have &quot;Political Science&quot; on the one hand, and
&quot;Economics&quot; on the other.&nbsp; The former act like they can
talk about power without talking about money while the latter want to
talk about money without talking about power.&nbsp; They're both nearly
useless (a few radical freaks aside) for any critical understanding of
society.&nbsp; <br><br>
That task has largely been left to sociologists and philosophers, though
even some literary types have gotten into the act.&nbsp; But, as was
mentioned, sociology has plenty of mainstream, bourgeois
practioners.&nbsp;&nbsp; The American Sociological Association is mostly
liberal number-crunchers (almost all wonderfully nice people, careerism
aside), and if amongst these there are those who have serious doubts
about capitalism they tend to keep it to themselves.&nbsp; There ARE
plenty of radicals, however, and you can find a few hundred of them in
the Marxist Section, and elsewhere.<br><br>
The extent to which a discipline is bourgeois seems to reflect-- as does
much else--&nbsp; its usefulness to capital, no?&nbsp;&nbsp; Hence
Economics is right up there, as are the political science policy
wonks.&nbsp; In this regard sociologists are not to be trusted-- at least
since the rollback of the welfare state in the early 1970s.<br><br>
One more thing.&nbsp; Most of the time I'll take the postmodernists and
post-structuralists over the liberal number crunchers.&nbsp; The former
come bearing radical epistemology, if not always radical left politics,
and the empirical work that at least some of them do can be useful to
disrupting convention.&nbsp; Indeed, I consider myself a &quot;postmodern
Marxist&quot; after the fashion of the neo-Althusserians associated with
the journal <i>Rethinking Marxism</i>.&nbsp; Michael might be interested
to have a look at Resnick and Wolff's <i>Knowledge and Class</i>
(Chicago, 1987) as well as their <i>Economics: Marxian Versus
Neoclassical</i> (Johns Hopkins, 1987).&nbsp; I happen to think that
&quot;deconstruction,&quot; is a useful way to approach ideology critique
(see Brian Fay's <i>Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its
Limits</i>), and that we can get along just fine without essentialism (a
la Rorty).<br><br>
It occurs to me that maybe my primary motivation for responding to this
was that it was so nice to hear my discipline mentioned, for a change, in
a relatively positive light!<br><br>
best,<br><br>
Cliff<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 07:25 AM 10/13/02 -0700, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I would certainly think that the
social viewpoint has<br>
something to do with the relative lefty-ness of<br>
sociologists. However, we shouldn't overestimate the<br>
effectiveness of their resistance, as I have known<br>
many sociologists, particularly of the postmodern<br>
mold, who fall into a sort of ivory tower mentality<br>
that seems to declaw any left-wing tendencies that<br>
they might have.<br><br>
geo<br><br>
--- Michael Handelman &lt;mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; This may be overly idealist of me, but do you think<br>
&gt; one of the reason for sociology seems to be to the<br>
&gt; left of Poli Sci and Economics, has something to do<br>
&gt; with the fact that because sociology deals with the<br>
&gt; study of groups and society, it tends to be<br>
&gt; *somewhat*<br>
&gt; innoculated to Bourgeois ideology regarding the<br>
&gt; individual (Thatcher's &quot;There is no such thing as<br>
&gt; society&quot; seems to be about as pure Bourgeois<br>
&gt; ideology<br>
&gt; as one can get, and this ideology seems extremely<br>
&gt; antithetical to sociology).<br>
&gt; <br><br>
=====<br>
&quot;Look for me in the whirlwind - dare to struggle, dare to
win&quot;<br>
=========================<br>
George J. Ciccariello Maher IV<br>
St. John's College<br>
Cambridge<br>
CB2 1TP<br>
United Kingdom<br><br>
__________________________________________________<br>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos &amp; More<br>
<a href="http://faith.yahoo.com/"; eudora="autourl">http://faith.yahoo.com</a><br><br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; --- from list
aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---</font></blockquote></html>

--Boundary_(ID_W1CmFsmLPsS32AD50klyIw)--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---