A good deal of progressive ideology is rooted in sociological theory.

[redqueen]

Agree or disagree?

I'm not sure where the antipathy toward this so-called 'soft' science comes from, but it is offputting to see it on a progressive board.

[mike_c]

1. I'm not really qualified to comment on the main assertion...

...because social theory is WAY outside my field, but I will say that, in my experience, some of the most rationally progressive and "movement knowledgeable" people I know are sociologist colleagues. When I was in grad school I mostly looked down my nose at what I perceived to be less than rigorous approaches in "soft sciences," especially those who did mostly qualitative social research, but now, twenty plus years later, I am in awe of the perceptive power and understanding of some of those same colleagues. Many of them were walking the walk years before I even knew it needed walking.

[redqueen]

3. I don't know how anyone can take that course and not come away with that awareness. nt

[unrepentant progress]

2. More a case of both progressivism and sociology coming from the same broad social forces

But it'd be awesome if more people could read in sociology. For instance, Durkheim would suggest that ubiquitous security cameras are something that no self-respecting social liberal or progressive should support. Yet we see people here on DU clamoring for the loving gaze of Big Brother. Of course, Durkheim would also suggest that some level of crime is good for society. That one's a little harder to justify, though it's something I agree with.

[Fumesucker]

4. DU has a solid plurality who aren't remotely progressive or liberal

Indeed there's quite a few here who obviously loathe anything progressive or liberal.

I wouldn't use DU as a gauge of what progressives or liberals think.

[hootinholler]

14. It seems to me to be leaning more that way as time goes on.

The longer I'm here the more progressive voices I keep missing, mostly they leave in disgust, some flame out spectacularly.

I wish I knew where they have gone.

[redqueen]

5. Would you say, then, that they're entwined at a fundamental level?

[unrepentant progress]

9. Oh sure. Definitely.

[Dash87]

6. Sociology is often labeled a junk science because the truths it brings out are inconvenient.

That's how I see it anyway.

[redqueen]

10. Thinking of the times I've seen it happen here,

I am most definitely inclined to agree.

[geek tragedy]

7. Well, if one rejects the idea that it is possible to understand society-level

forces, then one would also reject the idea that government should do something about it.

Also, hard to imagine most disciplines like women's studies, queer studies etc doing much absent the work that sociologists do.

[el_bryanto]

8. Probably true - basically the thought that environment shapes the individuals who inhabit it

At the core of liberalism is the idea that if we made conditions better for people they would then improve to match their conditions - nobody is poor by choice - so if we gave them some of the same advantages we see in wealthy people, they would improve.

Conservatives tend to believe that people are as they are by moral choices. The choice to live in slums may be regrettable, but it's their choice. Either that or they believe that the only way to really help people is to convert them to Christ.

Bryant

[redqueen]

16. Good example.

Well said, thanks.

[YoungDemCA]

24. Exactly

Well said.

[msanthrope]

11. It would be helpful if you provided examples. nt

[KamaAina]

12. It's actually more of a counterexample

to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022811889#post55

[msanthrope]

15. To what, precisely? nt

[KamaAina]

17. The sociology-bashing

contained therein.

[msanthrope]

18. I think whatever 'sociology bashing' was going on hardly justifies

a separate thread. This isn't Meta, after all.

I'm still waiting to hear which progressive values are founded on sociological theory, and what that means.

Are values founded in sociological theory good?

[KamaAina]

19. Meta bit the dust a couple of months ago.

Gee, I wonder why.

[redqueen]

20. This isn't about those particular comments.

I didn't even see that one, where the person quoted uncyclopedia (:wtf

I did see some later in that thread, but I have seen more than a few such comments here, and on other sites too, but its more disconcerting to see on a progressive board.

As for your need for examples, others seem to be having no problem.... and there's even a good, basic example in the post directly before yours, so...

[msanthrope]

26. So expand on your OP--what values are you claiming are 1) progressive & 2) rooted in

sociological theory?

[ellisonz]

13. Some people will make all kinds of ridicuous arguments to try to justify their misogyny. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

21. This.

nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. What about misanthropy?

[YoungDemCA]

22. Antipathy towards "soft" science comes from those who wish to preserve the existing power relations

in society.

[redqueen]

27. I read some articles about this a while back... this dismissiveness toward sociology isn't new.

I remember one that said the same thing you're saying here. I'll have to try to find it again.

[YoungDemCA]

31. I'd be interesting in reading that article

nt

[arely staircase]

62. or those who wish to preserve actual science

humanities masquerading as science diminish both science and the humanities. sociology is valuable but it is not a science. neither is history and I am an historian.

[sibelian]

23. Theory must be substantiated by experiment.

This is difficult in sociological theory.

It's particularly difficult when experiments reveal things that don't feel nice.

[galileoreloaded]

25. social dynamics and sociology tend to focus on what is.

whereas politics and personal agendas focus on what should be.

du is driven by kind, ideological, and altruistic people that are trying to get their needs met, and undulate on both sides of the ideological spectrum as it exists in the progressive space.

[redqueen]

28. No. Sociological findings fuel reform efforts. nt

[galileoreloaded]

29. No. sociology defines the existing emotional and biological terrain and

the historical context in which it developed.

humans take that and develop strategy and tactics to either foster that linear expansion or bend it slightly to a desired outcome.

you cant hide from being a human being for long. allllllways catches ya.

[sibelian]

30. That's.... odd.

You seemto be saying you want a science that tells you what you want to hear.

[YoungDemCA]

32. Read up on the history of racial science

Including (but not limited to) eugenics.

Seems like that would be more of "science telling (powerful) people what they wanted to hear."

[redqueen]

34. I'm kinda stunned that this subject is so not intuitively obvious.

Is it me?

It's not so esoteric a subject, is it?

[galileoreloaded]

58. what your promoting isn't science, its a personal agenda

science requires objective reason and empirical controls, not selection bias and subjective analysis.

truth is a cruel and unfeeling master.

[redqueen]

33. lol, no... not at all.

Some of those findings have led to some very misguided efforts.

Not sure where you got that impression, but no.

[galileoreloaded]

37. i dont think you get it. n/t

[redqueen]

38. ... says the guy who thinks there's no such thing as rape culture,

and can't explain what he meant by "special protections".

[galileoreloaded]

39. lol. not responsible for the reading comprehension of others :) nt

[BainsBane]

40. cop out

You refuse to be specific because you know you argument is indefensible. You didn't name ONE special protection. Any argument requires substantiation. You make clear you cannot do that.

[galileoreloaded]

41. do you read what you write?

because i do.

[BainsBane]

43. everyone in that last thread

read what you wrote and no one knew what you meant. We guessed and you said we were wrong, but you refused to clarify what you meant. You lack the courage of your convictions to be specific. Writing is about communication. When no one understands what you have written, your have failed to communicate your point.

I know you won't be more specific because you don't want people to know what you really think. I feel pretty sure I know what we're dealing with here.

[galileoreloaded]

44. i was clear in both intent and prose. i cant help you anymore. nt

[BainsBane]

45. You refuse to

If special protections exist, they shouldn't be so difficult to name.

[Democracyinkind]

50. You were not. Multiple people in that thread asked independantly.

Some, like me, just wondered, without comenting.

[redqueen]

42. ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2817676

[BainsBane]

48. It's like opposition to affirmative action

Not wanting to compete with a full pool of qualified people, so they decide the only "equal" situation is when a white man wins out. If a woman or man of color gets a job, it HAS to be due to special preferences. That's what I surmise. Since he refuses to be specific, he can hardly fault me for failing to understand.

Of course how that applies to enforcement of a crime is harder to understand, as is the notion that prosecuting rape cases more vigorously or identifying the existence of rape culture somehow privileges women in some way. Ultimately trying to find a coherent thread is a lost cause.

[DanTex]

53. When not a single person understands what you are saying, you might want to look in the mirror...

Just something to consider. I mean, sure, there's a chance that you are some misunderstood genius, but it's a lot more likely that you're just babbling nonsense.

[galileoreloaded]

57. meh, i always consider the source of the criticism and act accordingly. nt

[ellisonz]

59. +1

galileoreloaded (1,691 posts)
54. i don't believe a "rape culture" exists.

View profile
i believe rape exists in our culture, but special protections for some detract from us all.

of course, i believe in equalist concepts and egalitarian structures. paint me weird.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2817676

So painted, this one is weird, and pretty much wrong.

[DanTex]

60. Is it me or is DU degenerating towards the youtube commentary level...

[YoungDemCA]

35. Thinking about this some more....

I would agree that sociological theory complements progressive ideology, since at the core of both is the view that human beings do not have a fixed "human nature" but act differently depending on environment, circumstances, and social structures and conditions-all of which can and do change.

Conservative ideology, remember, very much rests on the assumption that social inequality is inevitable and natural; therefore, any attempts to alter the social order to make it more equitable would have dangerous consequences for the social good. Furthermore, a lot more emphasis is put on individual morality and responsibility by conservatives.

Therefore, when you have a field of research that says that social forces have as much (if not more) impact on individuals' choices as do their own moral compasses-which are themselves very much a product of social environment, according to social scientists...well, it only figures that conservatives would take this as a threat to their ideology (which it in fact is).

[dembotoz]

36. sociology major-although a few years back

always been a liberal

reading and studies I did on poverty and criminology did in general reinforce what I believed as a liberal

I like to believe that what I believe is based on fact

[arely staircase]

46. a good deal of it is rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament

but one doesn't have to accept Christianity (or sociology) to be a progressive

[rrneck]

47. The "soft sciences" are no less rigorous than "hard sciences".

They just use different evaluative tools. The real danger is confusing the two.

[hfojvt]

56. as a physics, math and economics major

I gotta disagree.

A lot of what goes on in economics is not really very rigorous.

And sociology and anthropology, much as I love them, seem to be even worse in terms of rigor.

The other thing is the jump from "is" to "ought". For example, the classical "economic man" was a selfish person who tried to maximize his gain and minimize his costs. Now it would be one thing if it was actually observed "this is the way people really act". But instead, it was just a theoretical construct, but having been advanced as a theory, it entered the world of ideas as "this is a way people 'should' act" or "it is OKAY for people to act this way" or "it is inevitable that people will act this way". As such, economic theory becomes an enabler, in my view, of a whole lot of bad behaviour.

[bettyellen]

61. are you kidding me? you actually think people BECAME selfish because they got the idea from reading

about it? No one needed to be "enabled" to be greedy and selfish. They might point to it to justify it, but they sure didn't get the idea from a book, LOL.

[rrneck]

63. The soft sciences depend

on subjective evidence and self reported phenomena that cannot be empirically measured. People do things that don't make logical sense most of the time. Nevertheless, their behavior can be examined and measured with great precision. Just ask anybody that wrote a novel or played a song.

The hard sciences depend on removing subjective interpretations from the equation, the soft sciences are designed to operate in a subjective environment.

[Democracyinkind]

49. I refuse to be lectured about "soft science" by non-scientists.

As a "soft scientist" myself; I can barely take it from "hard scientiests", but at least they have something to show for.

And yes, progressive ideology is simply unthinkable withouth emplyoing sociological concepts such as "thick description" etc. In fact, it is one of the few ideologies where a method, as opposed to some dogma, is prevalent in producing it.

[JaneyVee]

52. I agree. Progressive ideology has spawned from sociological theory.

[bemildred]

54. Disagree. Progressive ideas are ancient and natural.

You can find then in many of the old Greek and Latin authors for example.

The fact that later academic studies support progressive policies on pragmatic grounds is not roots, it's confirmation.

[LeftInTX]

55. I think it's a mixture of things

For instance in the Progressive era: Public health, child labor laws, Margaret Sanger, Dorothy Day etc. this was a very academic movement. I assume the study of sociology played an important part. Public health and public education type issues tend to be sociology based.

Labor unions: Have been mostly grassroots and organization. I'm not well versed in the academic history of labor unions. I'm sure that someone in Europe wrote some academic papers that were influential, but I see the labor union movements primarily as a workers' grassroots organization. I believe management's and the establishment's acceptance of them have been due to the fact that management was outnumbered and relied on workers. In the later half of the 20th century, right to work states started popping up and stealing jobs. However, within 20 years jobs were suddenly outsourced to foreign countries. Outsourcing is completely stifling grassroots organizations. It may take some sociological research or a type of tipping point, such as a series of industrial accidents here and abroad or loss of profits due to poor working conditions to revive the movement.


Anti-trust laws: This seems like a pragmatic common sense legislation. I'm not sure if there was much sociology behind it. From an academic standpoint, maybe there were economists involved with this?

I guess that's how I see roots of modern progressive ideas.