Received: from acs4.bu.edu (ACS4.BU.EDU [128.197.154.40]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id OAA25180 for <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>; Fri, 9 May 1997 14:51:12 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from conroyt@localhost) by acs4.bu.edu (8.8.4/) id QAA139227; Fri, 9 May 1997 16:45:48 -0400
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 16:45:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: thomas conroy <conroyt@bu.edu>
Subject: Re: questions
To: "M.HOOVER" <67910167%TAONODE@VMCMS.CSUOHIO.EDU>
cc: Sociology Graduate Students -- International <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199705092008.OAA23671@csf.Colorado.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9705091642.A166238-0100000@acs4.bu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 9 May 1997, M.HOOVER wrote:

> And finally, a question about sociology.  Here at CSU we have two
> or three professors who are heavily into the "Marxist/conflict"
> tradition of sociology.  I don't have a problem with that, but there
> is a feeling among some of the students here that it might hurt your
> grades if you disagree with this way of thinking.  We have one
> professor who believes that any criticism of Marx is a product of
> "ideology".  Does anyone else out there feel this pressure to
> conform to a particular way of thinking?

I just wanted to throw in a comment here. Although I am not familiar with 
the particulars of the situation you describe, and do not know the 
professors you are describing, my inclination is to jump to their 
defense. Although I am not a Marxist sociologist myself (more of a social 
constructionist), I am generally quite supportive of the 
neo-Marxist/critical theory project and believe that it has made 
definitive contributions to our discipline, such as in the areas of 
theory, class/stratification research, sociology of knowledge and 
culture, sociology of mass media, sociology of race and ethnicity, 
gender studies, etc. There may be a certain defensiveness on 
the part of Marxians, who have, over and over again, seen their work 
ridiculed, misread, ignored and generally disvalued, and often for 
ideological reasons; it would not be a suprise to me if they thus begin 
to respond on ideological terms. I've also seen instances of critics who 
may figure that they know about, and can perhaps dismiss, this approach 
after only having read some less than sympathetic secondary accounts - 
Jonathan Turner's, for instance, rather than bothering with the harder, 
more original stuff. Again, I am not familiar with the particulars of 
the situation you describe. If these profs are simply being ideological 
and less than intellectually honest, I'd feel no qualms about taking 
them on in debate in some appropriate forum; after all, neo-Marxians 
have good insights but not the entire market on truth, and the limits of 
their perspective are worth a healthy debate. A good debate in a proper 
forum ought to indicate whether you're dealing with scholars or mere 
ideologues. 

Anyway, this is just my $0.02

Tom Conroy
Sociology Grad Student
Boston University