Fri, 21 Oct 1994 04:12:59 -0700 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 04:11:24 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: "Stepping Out" Actually, Molotch's article is "Getting Out". Harvey wants us to "get out" in two different ways: first, we should pay more attention to what other disciplines have to say about the issues we're researching; and second, we should get out into the world and enrich our lives so that we will have more insights into how things work. He links this "knowing how things work" to his argument that instead of piling on citations, sociologists should just assert the things that "everybody knows" (or ought to). This second item was discussed over the weekend by a couple of people who found it dubious. I don't know about the rest of you, but I only had time to read two of the articles, and the other one I chose was James A. Davis' "What's Wrong with Sociology?". On "getting out", Davis and Molotch are opposites; Davis thinks that Sociology hasn't shown to the will to fend off alien contagions. Consequently, we have put up with an appalling amount of bunk (postmodernism, ethnic "studies", "feminist methodology", "humanistic sociology", "ethnomethodology", "grounded theory", and the like) simply because we cannot draw a firm line between what is legitimate academic sociology and what is not. (188) Davis laments that the "hot topics" in Sociology today include "poverty, homelessness, racial inequality, man/woman conflicts, the fall of communism, aging, and third world development," which are "intractible, massive, convoluted social problems where it is extremely unlikely that any progress can be made through policies and programs." Instead, he would like us to take up problems in which we can make a dent: "short range demographic projections, development of attitude scales, and election polling" (189). Both Molotch and Davis comment on Sociology's incoherence and the lack of progressive cumulation (as opposed to cumulation "as debris on the shop floor" as Molotch says) of research findings. While there may be zillions of references on topic X, article 9995 written last year stands a good chance of being less far along in its analysis than arcticle 127 written 25 years ago. Molotch's unlikely solution is that we should organize ourselves more into distinct cultures, pulling together those who think in similar ways. Davis' even more unlikely solution is that the Sociology journals should force us to build up a cumulative knowledge base by preferring articles which specify better models explaining the correlations between certain key variables. He says that "sociology could consider itself a coherent, cumulative science if and when its core topics have at their core causal networks similar to Figure 5.1, page 179 in THE AMERICAN OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE (Blau and Duncan, 1967)". He goes on to suggest that we should look at problems like: 2. It is well established that in the United States, net of education, the newer the cohort the lower the verbal skills. But is this due to something about schools, something about the new generation, or what? His questions are reasonable, and it is indeed curious that no one has tried (much) to answer them. But Davis' solution to Sociology's identity crisis (if we really are having one) amounts to lobotomizing the patient in order to save her. While there is much to admire in the work of, say, Otis Dudley Duncan, I didn't become a sociologist in order to emulate him, and I think I would rather go back to being a computer systems manager (my old job) than be forced to do that kind of sociology. Davis is trying to make us look like "real" science, but, like Molotch, I think the effort is pointless. I think that both articles made a number of other good points that I would list if I had the time. Instead, I'll point out five trivial commonalities between the articles that I found interesting. 1. Both refer admiringly to Howard Becker's WRITING FOR SOCIAL SCIENTISTS. I think that's a good hint that you should pick up a copy if you haven't yet. As an aside, I thought the book was wonderful, but I have never been able to follow up one of its key recommendations: make writing a social activity by sharing drafts with your colleagues. Have others done this successfully, or have you been frustrated like me? 2. Both make references to Monty Python (I SAID this was trivial), e.g. "That parrot is dead, regardless of what its salesperson claims" (Davis, p. 185). I thought this was a curious coincidence; are we the "flying circus" of the social science world? 3. Both make Jewish references. Davis says that we sociologists need a "shtick", which for him is explaining correlations. Molotch, when he advises truth in advertising regarding the different "cultures" within sociology (e.g. "'The Journal of Wisconsin Quantoids' (as opposed to 'American Sociological Review')"), he says "It would look bad for the gentiles, but it would capture something real" (229). Sociologists as Jews, and with our own shtick, yet. A lot of sociologists ARE Jews, and I'm curious what this means to the non-Jews (don't look at me) out there in electronicland. How do you think it affects the discipline? 4. It struck me that both of these articles read like they were written by old men. It's my bias, but Molotch sounds old and wise, while Davis sounds old and cranky. In particular, Davis, with his list of undesirables (ethnic studies, feminist methods) comes off like somebody lost in the past. 5. Did anybody else notice that all these articles about "what's wrong with sociology" were written by white (I think) men (pretty sure)? Nothing wrong with white men, speaking as one, but it seems like somebody ELSE might have had something even more different and enlightening to say. That's it for tonight (this morning, really). Michael