Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 05:19:59 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19971018071925.3987a8a2@pop.uvm.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
From: TR Young <TR.Young@uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: Truth Values of Social Theories: Five Points of Critique
Cc: psn-special@csf.colorado.edu, ahs-talk@ncsu.edu
Jill McCorkle has made three criticisms of my piece on the social sources
of social theory; criticisms which has improved it.  Thank you, Jill
                        *******

First, to my point that the validity of a social theory depends
in part upon the hard work of people in making real a given pattern of 
behavior upon which the theory arises:

Jill says:
 
--the instillation of belief structures are fundamentally a product of 
social power.

Right!  And it takes a lot of power to force people into some patterns.
Hence war, police, management science and, in 21st century America, a
lot of social control institutions ranging from the medical control
system to the religious control system to the criminal justice system
and on through the peer review system, the private security system and
the vast apparatus of government regulatory agencies.

To my foggy point that affirmative varieties of postmodern theory stress
that the very real patterns of behavior of minorities, including women,
arise out of human action rather than are given by either god or by
nature, Jill says:

>Again, this seems to be a foggy reference to power arrangements--what do
>you mean by "places limitations on women, minorities, and ethnic groups"?
>Don't hegemonic discourses place limitations on privileged groups as well
>(e.g. Bob Connell's work on Masculinities)?

Jill is correct: I did ignore the social processes which tend to lock 
privilege groups into the top of hierarchies of race, class, gender
and caste...part of my populist/marxist/left-liberal biases, of course.

To the point that I could have made the postmodern part better by

                                   "...a more systematic discussion of
>standpoint theory which is much more than admitting biases but is based in
>understanding how power arrangements influence (but not determine)
>knowledge structures...'

I agree...and in the Red Feather Dictionary, I mentioned the Standpoint view as
central to a postmodern philosophy of science:


        Science, Postmodern. Postmodern philosophy of science makes a place
for variety,         difference, unpredictable change and dis-order
generally. It argues that the knowledge         process has many pathways to
truth and wisdom; that only short term truth statements are         possible
for complex systems. Feminist Standpoint epistemology (S.S. Rixecker)
teaches us         that there are many different and valid standpoints from
which to 'know' how a system         works and should work. Marx made the
point that one's consciousness varies with one's         position in the
social structure. The present author takes the position that a fully human
knowledge process requires pre-modern, modern and postmodern knowledge
process. See each         for its assumptions, limitations and contributions.

I invite anyone who knows Standpoint epistemology better than do I to
contribute to this
series of post.  As with Jill's contribution, 'twould make the larger point
better than I have
done.

The larger point is that the postmodern part of the limitations of social
theory is that they reflect the cultural categories, themes, langauge system
and social arrangements of the society out of which theorists come...I think
that while theory is helpful to the human quest for reliable
knowledge, one should not reify a given theoretical statement [such as
functionalism] as
eternal nor should one deify social theory as universal.

                                                                            
    TR
>
TR Young
The Red Feather Institute
8085 Essex, Weidman, Mi.,
  48893--ph: [517] 644 3089
  Email: tr@tryoung.com
         TR.Young@uvm.edu