Message-ID: <33AEF9F8.724D@yale.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:34:32 -0400
From: Dan Ryan <daniel.ryan@yale.edu>
Reply-To: daniel.ryan@yale.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Areas of interest/prestige
References: <E0wgH4e-0005Le-00@mail.unixg.ubc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Douglas Sadao Aoki / Lucy De Fabrizio wrote:

> ...
> seems to me that the discipline has little prestige in the academy, at least
> in the North American scene.

Well, it does depend on whom you ask.  The English and other literary
studies professors who do so-called social theory would not necessarily
be held in extremely high regard in all circles.  Many of my grad school
colleagues in English, comp lit, and American studies work on ostensibly
"sociological" projects but often as not their "theorizing" consists of
undisciplined interpretative philosophizing and textual commentary. 
Regard for evidence (of whatever kind) tends to be rather secondary. 
Great stuff, and I enjoy reading it and talking with them about it, but
I don't agree with them when they characterize it as social theory.   

I wonder if I can start a fight by saying that "real" theory is grounded
in data of some kind, otherwise it's "mere" philosophy (and don't jump
to conclusions about where I'm coming from -- phenomenology is my
earliest love).

> My area is social theory, and contemporary social theory is dominated not by
> sociology and but by English and other literary studies (for instance,
> deconstruction, post-structuralism, new historicism, queer theory,
> psychoanalysis, much of feminist theory, even critical legal theory).

Although professional turf protection would never let them admit it, the
fact that all these genres are trying to do sociology strikes me as the
ultimate vindication of the sociological project.  

> As a
> result, when I've spoken with some prominent social theorists outside of
> sociology, they have been uniformly very dismissive of the discipline.

"As a result"?  I don't follow the logic of that.

Perhaps we should be a little bit sociological here: these folks are
probably dismissive of most disciplines other than their own.  Heck,
*I'm* dismissive of a lot of sociology.  I'm also dismissive of lots of
cultural studies and the other stuff you mention.  At the end of the
day, where does "dismissive of the discipline" get you?  Have they
grappled with and dismissed particular works?  Do they disagree with
someone's findings or claims?  Do they think they have convincingly
shown something that is contrary to something some sociologists have
done?  Where's the beef?

I, for one, am quite content to work in a discipline that gets no
respect from *certain* quarters and I'd start to worry if all of the
sudden we were being held up as a model in those *certain* quarters!