|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Speaking as a sociologist:
Sociology is a deeply fragmented discipline. While sociologists in general are "left leaning", I think its false to assume, that activism is all there is. Here in Germany there is a strong tradition of sociology as an empirical science that tries to follow the general idea of falsificationism. However even here we noticed, that the more "activist" side of sociology tends to be the one that is more visible to the public, as these folks tweet about, write articles in news paper, etc.. Empirical sociologists tend to be more on the "reserved side", they do their research, publish papers and mainly talk about results with their peers. We probably need better publicity.
This insight (among other things) has led to some unrest within the community and empirical sociologists now try to distance themselves from the "activist" side of the discipline (sometimes wanting to create a completely new discipline or at least labeling themselves something else).
As far as I know the activist branch of sociology is way stronger in the US, but there are also voices who speak out against this. See for example http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS/Applications/Turner.sociology irrelevant.pdf
Sociology is more than gender and identity politics, and many sociologists do actively dislike post modernism, critical theory and everything that came from it.
|
Thank you, finally a sociologist.
Do you think it's fair to characterize the less activist side as "conservative" (keeping in mind that there are different definitions of the word conservative of course)?
If so I wonder what is the "conservative theory of sociology". I guess I don't see how many of the naturalist beliefs that come with a conservative world view resist a study of social patterns. Yesterday I was thinking about this and I came up with the notion that religion is basically the conservative attempt at sociology - don't worry, I know it's quite a stretch.
|
I would say the less activist side (lets call them "analytical sociologists", as that is the name we currently use), is centrist with a left bias. And with centrist I mean the actual meaning of the term, not the parody that US-lefties like to use. Allthough funnily enough, if you do science and take interdisciplinary work seriously, you may come to conclusions that make you a "conservative" or a "reactionary" in the eyes of some, even if you personally dont see yourself that way.
An example: Many empirical sociologists think, that anti democratic values are wide spread among muslim minority migrants (based on survey research), and they do think this is a problem. This may get them labeled as "far right" by certain individuals, even if they support "left leaning" ideas like strong social welfare, gay marriage and right to abortion. But then again, in Germany the large "center-conservative" party (CDU) isnt really against these things aswell (or at least doesnt fight them actively), so maybe being for stricter migration policies already makes one "conservative" nowadays?
"Real" conservative sociologists probably exists aswell (in favor of tradition, (christian) religion, against gay marriage/abortion, etc.), but they are the minority. I know historically germany had a strong right wing branch of sociology, but that one was decidedly unempirical (basically social philosophy) and died after the second world war.
|
You're going to need to be more specific on what a centrist is, because typically a centrist in the US is further to the right than they are in Europe, and you're saying the opposite there so I'm not following.
|
I know historically germany had a strong right wing branch of sociology, but that one was decidedly unempirical (basically social philosophy) and died after the second world war.
Is this a euphemistic description for what I think it is?
|
On November 05 2020 00:47 BaBaUTZ wrote:
An example: Many empirical sociologists think, that anti democratic values are wide spread among muslim minority migrants (based on survey research), and they do think this is a problem. This may get them labeled as "far right" by certain individuals, even if they support "left leaning" ideas like strong social welfare, gay marriage and right to abortion. But then again, in Germany the large "center-conservative" party (CDU) isnt really against these things aswell (or at least doesnt fight them actively), so maybe being for stricter migration policies already makes one "conservative" nowadays?
And the same people will perform surveys that ask the same questions and correlate them with party affiliation, which shows that voters of conservative parties are more acceptant of strong leaders and anti-democratic values and then be called "far left" even by mainstream conservatives .
|
On November 05 2020 00:51 Nebuchad wrote:
You're going to need to be more specific on what a centrist is, because typically a centrist in the US is further to the right than they are in Europe, and you're saying the opposite there so I'm not following.
A centrist in my (German centric) view is someone who is somewhere between the two dominating parties (traditionally the conservative CDU and the social democratic SPD) and whose main defining feature is the strict rejection of extremist/anti-democratic views from both sides of the spectrum.
@GH
Not sure what you think, but yes, these guys at least colaborated with Nazis (allthough I think they mostly saw them as a way to get the monarchy back).
@Big J
Yes, thats the classical struggle 
|
On November 05 2020 00:51 Nebuchad wrote:
You're going to need to be more specific on what a centrist is, because typically a centrist in the US is further to the right than they are in Europe, and you're saying the opposite there so I'm not following.
Really? European centrists are usually open to all kind of policies and things
US centrists are like against abortion and gays
|
|
|
On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 00:51 Nebuchad wrote:
You're going to need to be more specific on what a centrist is, because typically a centrist in the US is further to the right than they are in Europe, and you're saying the opposite there so I'm not following.
A centrist in my (German centric) view is someone who is somewhere between the two dominating parties (traditionally the conservative CDU and the social democratic SPD) and whose main defining feature is the strict rejection of extremist/anti-democratic views from both sides of the spectrum.
I would agree, that's similar in Switzerland. It's way further right in the US though so I'm not sure what you were referencing before.
On November 05 2020 01:08 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 00:51 Nebuchad wrote:
You're going to need to be more specific on what a centrist is, because typically a centrist in the US is further to the right than they are in Europe, and you're saying the opposite there so I'm not following.
Really? European centrists are usually open to all kind of policies and things US centrists are like against abortion and gays
We're saying the same thing aren't we?
|
On November 05 2020 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:On November 05 2020 00:51 Nebuchad wrote:
You're going to need to be more specific on what a centrist is, because typically a centrist in the US is further to the right than they are in Europe, and you're saying the opposite there so I'm not following.
A centrist in my (German centric) view is someone who is somewhere between the two dominating parties (traditionally the conservative CDU and the social democratic SPD) and whose main defining feature is the strict rejection of extremist/anti-democratic views from both sides of the spectrum. I would agree, that's similar in Switzerland. It's way further right in the US though so I'm not sure what you were referencing before. Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 01:08 sharkie wrote:On November 05 2020 00:51 Nebuchad wrote:
You're going to need to be more specific on what a centrist is, because typically a centrist in the US is further to the right than they are in Europe, and you're saying the opposite there so I'm not following.
Really? European centrists are usually open to all kind of policies and things US centrists are like against abortion and gays We're saying the same thing aren't we?
oh god we are. Sorry for totally misreading your post
|
On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:
I would agree, that's similar in Switzerland. It's way further right in the US though so I'm not sure what you were referencing before.
You are confused because I didnt articulate my annoyance properly. I'll try again: I'm not actually annoyed with US-Lefties using the term like they do, it probably makes sense in an american context. I am annoyed, that some EU-Lefties are adopting US-based talking points and definitions in an uncritical manner. By that I mean: "enlightened centrism" memes (which is very ironic in a deeply centrist country like Germany), A.C.A.B, etc.
|
On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:@Big J Yes, thats the classical struggle
That's not the struggle. The real struggle is when you openly declare, given those and similar facts, that you are against all religions, traditions, nationalisms and so on.
Then you are once again a left-wing extremist in the eyes of the conservatives of all religions and nations.
Furthermore you might become a target for the liberal and conservative mainstream big money media alike, who claim you are an antisemite to get rid of you and your "extremist" views. Like what happened to Corbyn.
|
On November 05 2020 01:24 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:@Big J Yes, thats the classical struggle That's not the struggle. The real struggle is when you openly declare, given those and similar facts, that you are against all religions, traditions, nationalisms and so on. Then you are once again a left-wing extremist in the eyes of the conservatives.
To be fair, even as a very scientific minded person myself, I am not sure if something like this is possible. I think Nations need some sort of of common value base, some "gesellschaftlicher Kitt" ("societal putty") that holds everything together. Traditional values (which often come from religion) can serve this function, as can a certain amount of nationalism. While I dont think all of our traditions (and religion) do this in a perfect manner, I'm not sure if "replacing these" necessarily leads to better results. Constructs created by humans are always flawed, and well meant actions can have unintended negative consequences. For now I think trying to slowly work on the negative side effects of certain parts of our culture is a more promising (if boring) way to improve society. From a global perspective, we are in a very good place already.
|
On November 05 2020 01:31 BaBaUTZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 01:24 Big J wrote:On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:@Big J Yes, thats the classical struggle That's not the struggle. The real struggle is when you openly declare, given those and similar facts, that you are against all religions, traditions, nationalisms and so on. Then you are once again a left-wing extremist in the eyes of the conservatives. To be fair, even as a very scientific minded person myself, I am not sure if something like this is possible. I think Nations need some sort of of common value base, some "gesellschaftlicher Kitt" ("societal putty") that holds everything together. Traditional values (which often come from religion) can serve this function, as can a certain amount of nationalism. While I dont think all of our traditions (and religion) do this in a perfect manner, I'm not sure if "replacing these" necessarily leads to better results. Constructs created by humans are always flawed, and well meant actions can have unintended negative consequences. For now I think trying to slowly work on the negative side effects of certain parts of our culture is a more promising (if boring) way to improve society. From a global perspective, we are in a very good place already.
I don't see how that benefits me in my lifetime in any meaningful way. I'll be dead in 40 years. Thats the only time span I am interested in and the only people that I should (and for the most part even can) be considerate of are those that live in this time span. (And before someone adds some snide comments about longterm threats like climate change, I do consider backwards recursion for that principle)
If thats the pace I should slow down to with my demands for what its right, then it is better not to waste any effort for that at all.
|
On November 05 2020 01:24 BaBaUTZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:
I would agree, that's similar in Switzerland. It's way further right in the US though so I'm not sure what you were referencing before. You are confused because I didnt articulate my annoyance properly. I'll try again: I'm not actually annoyed with US-Lefties using the term like they do, it probably makes sense in an american context. I am annoyed, that some EU-Lefties are adopting US-based talking points and definitions in an uncritical manner. By that I mean: "enlightened centrism" memes (which is very ironic in a deeply centrist country like Germany), A.C.A.B, etc.
I see what you meant. Thank you for clarifying.
As a pretty far left person myself I'm annoyed with all centrists, but there is a clear distinction. In my mind centrists in Europe have an incoherent political strategy but for sure they're overall decent people. Not much in commun with the ghouls in the US.
|
On November 05 2020 01:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 01:31 BaBaUTZ wrote:On November 05 2020 01:24 Big J wrote:On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:@Big J Yes, thats the classical struggle That's not the struggle. The real struggle is when you openly declare, given those and similar facts, that you are against all religions, traditions, nationalisms and so on. Then you are once again a left-wing extremist in the eyes of the conservatives. To be fair, even as a very scientific minded person myself, I am not sure if something like this is possible. I think Nations need some sort of of common value base, some "gesellschaftlicher Kitt" ("societal putty") that holds everything together. Traditional values (which often come from religion) can serve this function, as can a certain amount of nationalism. While I dont think all of our traditions (and religion) do this in a perfect manner, I'm not sure if "replacing these" necessarily leads to better results. Constructs created by humans are always flawed, and well meant actions can have unintended negative consequences. For now I think trying to slowly work on the negative side effects of certain parts of our culture is a more promising (if boring) way to improve society. From a global perspective, we are in a very good place already. I don't see how that benefits me in my lifetime in any meaningful way. I'll be dead in 40 years. Thats the only time span I am interested in and the only people that I should (and for the most part even can) be considerate of are those that live in this time span. (And before someone adds some snide comments about longterm threats like climate change, I do consider backwards recursion for that principle) If thats the pace I should slow down to with my demands for what its right, then it is better not to waste any effort for that at all.
This is confusing. So you do "backwards recursion" on climate change issues but not on any other issues that will have most of their impact after you are dead? You parenthetical comment only ended up making your position more confusing.
|
On November 05 2020 15:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 01:52 Big J wrote:On November 05 2020 01:31 BaBaUTZ wrote:On November 05 2020 01:24 Big J wrote:On November 05 2020 01:07 BaBaUTZ wrote:@Big J Yes, thats the classical struggle That's not the struggle. The real struggle is when you openly declare, given those and similar facts, that you are against all religions, traditions, nationalisms and so on. Then you are once again a left-wing extremist in the eyes of the conservatives. To be fair, even as a very scientific minded person myself, I am not sure if something like this is possible. I think Nations need some sort of of common value base, some "gesellschaftlicher Kitt" ("societal putty") that holds everything together. Traditional values (which often come from religion) can serve this function, as can a certain amount of nationalism. While I dont think all of our traditions (and religion) do this in a perfect manner, I'm not sure if "replacing these" necessarily leads to better results. Constructs created by humans are always flawed, and well meant actions can have unintended negative consequences. For now I think trying to slowly work on the negative side effects of certain parts of our culture is a more promising (if boring) way to improve society. From a global perspective, we are in a very good place already. I don't see how that benefits me in my lifetime in any meaningful way. I'll be dead in 40 years. Thats the only time span I am interested in and the only people that I should (and for the most part even can) be considerate of are those that live in this time span. (And before someone adds some snide comments about longterm threats like climate change, I do consider backwards recursion for that principle) If thats the pace I should slow down to with my demands for what its right, then it is better not to waste any effort for that at all. This is confusing. So you do "backwards recursion" on climate change issues but not on any other issues that will have most of their impact after you are dead? You parenthetical comment only ended up making your position more confusing.
No, i do it on all issues on principle. But that essentially only comes down to physical effects that cannot be changed at will, unlike social rules that can be changed at anytime.
E.g. turning all land in concrete because it is convenient for current generation drivers is not a simple decision. For such decisions you have to consider how complicated it will be to physically transform the land in the future. Since you don't know whether future generations will see that as benefitial or not.
Meanwhile for something like "property rights" or "gay rights" I really dont care for future generations and their demands. These things can be changed with a piece of paper (or less) if the will is there.
|
That is a pretty wild claim. Social institutions are just as hard to change and put on a correct path as anything else. Maybe even harder. "If the will is there" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. A lot of countries on this planet are very poorly governed, and it's not because they enjoy that state of affairs. It's because functioning institutions and law are insanely difficult to get right and maintain.
The precautionary principle applies as much to changing nature as it applies to changing politics, there are places in human history, on the European continent in particular, that went from being prosperous to being at war for hundreds of years. And that is why discounting the well-being of future generations is terrible.
|
On November 07 2020 08:50 Nyxisto wrote:
That is a pretty wild claim. Social institutions are just as hard to change and put on a correct path as anything else. Maybe even harder. "If the will is there" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. A lot of countries on this planet are very poorly governed, and it's not because they enjoy that state of affairs. It's because functioning institutions and law are insanely difficult to get right and maintain.
The precautionary principle applies as much to changing nature as it applies to changing politics, there are places in human history, on the European continent in particular, that went from being prosperous to being at war for hundreds of years. And that is why discounting the well-being of future generations is terrible.
They are very easy to change. Many people just don't want to because they are conservatives and hate change per se. That's something different than "cannot be changed at will". The "will" part is just mostly not true because there are always many people that claim a change "would not work" but the current institutions "function". Without providing a target measure or even goal for what "functioning" means.
E.g. I'd say a minimum goal for the functioining of state institutions is when
- they are democratic in the sense that a majority can change them at will as long as they maintain these basic goals
- they are fair in the sense that every newborn child at a point in time (and obviously under the rule of them) has the same expected overall lifetime wealth.
Talking about "function" without declaring what the goal is is meaningless. Concentration camps were incredibly well functioning institutions. I just don't like the goal of their function. But if that's all you care about, that things "function", then obviously you rarely need any change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
