Almost Laughing At The Idea
“There are hugely varied debates within a broadly left concern about issues of social equity and social discrimination.”
Members of the LSE sociology department are asked a seemingly unexpected question: Are there any right-wing sociologists?
“A lot of sociology would be left-leaning… but not because of some sort of political bias, but just because of the way that we think.”
Via Amir Sariaslan.
Update, via the comments:
Great moments in sociology. More great moments in sociology.
Not entirely unrelated.
“There are hugely varied debates within a broadly left concern…
LSE self-own.
LSE self-own.
Well, I’m not sure the video is quite making the case it presumably thinks it is.
Great moments in sociology.
More great moments in sociology.
They’re making a real effort to not answer the question.
What’s telling is that several of the speakers initially look amused by the question, as if it were outlandish or naïve, before offering rather feeble and self-flattering explanations for why their chosen field is so narrow in its political assumptions, so predictable in its conclusions and conceits. Reaching, as it does, from left-of-centre to really left-of-centre.
[ Added: ]
And these vanities and evasions, and clouds of faltering verbiage, are presented by the LSE as something to take pride in. A testament to the sociology department’s “empirically rich, conceptually sophisticated… analysis.”
“A lot of sociology would be left-leaning… but not because of some sort of political bias, but just because of the way that we think.”
Er…
http://powerbase.info/index.php/Julius_Gould
All the giant founding fathers of sociology – Adam Ferguson, Thorsten Veblen, Max Weber, Raymond Aron – were of the right. It is only the pygmy interpreters who are of the left.
Great moments in sociology.
‘the arse-end of academia’ LOL
That.
‘the arse-end of academia’ LOL
And remember, Drs Pitcher and Matthews, linked above, or almost any of the other sociology lecturers I’ve mentioned over the years – they aren’t anomalies in a vacuum. They have supervisors, peer-reviews, publishers, people who promote them. They’ve officially been deemed good enough to employ.
If you poke through the relevant threads, you’ll often find links to tweets from supportive peers, other sociologists, hailing the question-begging, fact-avoiding claptrap as exemplary, etc. These clowns exist in, and flourish in, an academic environment that rewards such hokum. Hence Dr Pitcher’s shock on encountering the mockery of the general public – a public he promptly disdained as unworthy of his brilliance. And whose mockery and corrections he hastily construed as somehow validating him.
…Thorsten Veblen…of the right…
Having had to read that dogs breakfast of a book “The Theory of the Leisure Class”, he is of the right in much the same way as Corbyn, Maduro, or every democrat running for president.
To paraphrase Mssr Descartes: I think I should be a lefty, therefore I am.
London School of Economics and Political Science
Sure it’s not a parody?
“…not because of some sort of political bias, but just because of the way that we think.”
Right. So it’s not about the way they think; it’s about the way they think. Got it.
Right. So it’s not about the way they think; it’s about the way they think. Got it.
The chap seems to be suggesting that leftist assumptions, piled one on top of another, are what sociology is. What it can only ever be. Which seems awfully convenient. And not at all self-flattering.
The chap seems to be suggesting that leftist assumptions, piled one on top of another, are what sociology is.
Not that it isn’t.
As a physical scientist, I used to mock sociologists with The First Theorem of Sociology: “Some do, some don’t.”
I’ve also always wondered why there are departments of sociology, but no departments of phrenology. Go figure.
Like they say, a fish doesn’t know it’s retarded.
“the arse-end of academia”
One of many arse-ends, what with all those Grievance Studies departments.
what with all those Grievance Studies departments.
But it’s not just Grievance Studies, it’s traditional fields of literature, philosophy, virtually anything in the liberal arts domain. All of which are then forced on the STEM fields because, of course, those engineers and doctors and mathematicians are soooo nerdy and backward and must, must, must be forceably enlightened by the very right (left) think of the sociologists of the subject matter. They “know” that without the guidance of their enlightenment, no STEM major would ever read a book, see a play, or listen to music (not that they wouldn’t be better off in their ignorance). They know this because they’re the HUMANities. Not STEM troglodytes.
We mock them for their science/math envy but they see it completely the other way. Of course they’ve all studied “math theory” and got the general idea. No need to waste their higher sensibilities with such trivial details. STEM is for the lower-thinking folks who are incapable of understanding THE BIG PICTURE.
One of many arse-ends, what with all those Grievance Studies departments.
A fractal gluteus, with each exploration of a fold revealing an ever more intricately repeating anus and set of cheeks.Forever.
They know this because they’re the HUMANities. Not STEM troglodytes.
’twas rather amusing to me how easy it was to get a foreign language minor (one of the harder such disciplines!) on the back of having had to take a large number of (unspecified) courses for humanities requirements in STEM. Quite outside the sociology I was required to take, even, and the ethics, English, and so on and so on.
“but not because of some sort of political bias, but just because of the way that we group think.”
Fixed that for you.
“each exploration of a fold revealing an ever more intricately repeating anus and set of cheeks”
Thanks for the visual.
I guess sociology is to science as astrology is to astonomy
I guess sociology is to science as astrology is to astronomy
Here’s your calibration: physical scientists are surprised by experimental results all the time.
Social “scientists” typically start out with a conjecture and, lo and behold, their experimental results virtually always bear out their original hunch. I guess the social “sciences” just get the premier intellects.
London School of Economics and Political Science
If politics were a science, the empirical evidence would have long since led to the demise of Political Science.
That first guy’s hair is fucking awful. It looks like he’s wearing a really bad toupee, over a bad haircut.
I couldn’t pay any attention to what he was saying.
If politics were a science, the empirical evidence would have long since led to the demise of Political Science.
I remember my second grade reader, I think it was called Bicycles to Boomerangs, had a story about a little black boy and his bicycle, don’t remember much of the actual story but part of it involved meeting his father coming home from work. His father was a “political scientist”. Now at the tender age of 8, I did know what politics was and of course what science was, but what the bloody hell a “political scientist” was was beyond me. Fifty years later, I still haven’t learned much. And WTF the purpose was of presenting the “job” of political scientist to second graders, well we’re all supposed to pretend there’s nothing odd about that. Nothing odd whatsoever.
On the plus side, they’re evasive because they’re embarrassed – and they should be. Also on the plus side: at least someone is asking the question.