Ignited again
"The sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society." C.Wright Mills.
Yesterday, as I sat in the first lecture of the 3rd Soc 101 class of my life I was reminded of why sociology is so amazing and why I fell in love with it nearly six years ago when I sat in the first lecture of the 1st 101 class I had ever taken. As Berger understands it, sociology is a form of consciousness, not a method. I think that last semester, I was caught up in trying to sort out the methods of sociology and imagining that I have to try to defend the methods I ultimately choose. But, instead, what I need is a thorough understanding of sociology as a form of consciousness - as a weltanschaung! (Say it, Charles!!!) When conceptualizing sociology that way, the focus only need be on questions that seek to understand the relationships between history and biography, and I think that's what I'm good at anyway. Deep down inside, I'm a theorist, not a demographer or a statistician. If I can keep focused on that while working toward a project that doesn't necessarily do that, maybe the tide will turn for me this semester. Interesting that it took one lecture in an intro level class to remind me of the things I had been losing sight of.
We'll see where things go from here. I'm trying to stay calm and not rush any decisions, but there is so much anxiety looming.
5 comments:
WELTANSCHAUNG!
A couple of things:
First, I think that even though you insist that you're a theorist and not a statistician, you're still good at stats and analysis and all that quantitative jazz, which will give you the advantage over one trick ponies in the future. Good work.
Second, saying that sociology is more of a form of consciousness, a mindset, a way of being, or whatever, than a method, sounds pragmatic to me. The pragmatic philosophers, even the earlier ones like Peirce, Royce, James and Dewey, insist that there aren't any unique "methods" to philosophy the way that your Hegels and Kants thought that there were. Even if they take it too far (which neo-pragmatists do), I think they make a good point by leveling the playing field. I think you could bring their arguments into the service of making your point, maybe arguing that being a certain way, being imaginative or open about sociology, is more important than taking a narrow set of concepts (Marxism, gender, whatever) and forcing them onto everything you see.
Hey Charlie,
Thanks for your comments. Very well said. I get so annoyed by the people who take one "variable" and make it the all explanatory concept. Gender scholars are usually the worst offenders. So...I appreciated your input!
Mair,
I will never have anything smart to say when it comes to Sociology. So any of my comments that follow a Sociology post will most likely have nothing to do with what you posted.
Aren't I fun?
Need more cat! More Mr. Moses!
ROCK ON! You've been needing that shot in the arm for a while. Look out, department, M-Lo's on the move!
But I agree with Plankiest - I loves me some Moses. Please?
Post a Comment