Comments on: Whatever Happened to Sociologists?

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:19:01 +0000

Yikes. I’m a sociologist, and I agree our filed is ripe for criticism. Perhaps I’ll return to offer a defense of our worthiness. But first, some facts about the characterization of this hoax as an existential crisis in sociology.

1. Sokal, the author who wrote the hoax, is not a sociologist; he is a physicist.
2. Social texts, the journal where the hoax occurred, is a cultural studies journal (although the distinction between that and sociology might be too fine to explain here).
3. The editor who presided over that issue, Andrew Ross, is also not a sociologist (I think his phd is in something like literary theory–but I agree that he may see himself as a sociologist).
4. The journal of sociology, referred to as the authoritative venue for this type of discussion, is currently the 87th ranked journal within the discipline (it’s the flagship journal of the Australian sociological association–who knew?).

Again, these facts do not discredit the idea that peer review in sociology, and our disciplinary shift away from matters that are relevant, are sources of concern. Rather, I offer them to show that there is more to this issue than meets the eye. Also, blog entries based on a quick scan of a Wikipedia entry on Sokal and the abstract of a recent journal article are a pet peeve of mine. /rant

By: Robert van Krieken

Robert van Krieken — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:28:53 +0000

Hello Rose….well, ‘often’, I don’t know…the point is that it’s a serious misconception, and it’s disappointing to see it being repeated here. The fact is that sociology as a discipline has been, on the whole, pretty consistently hostile to anything that doesn’t have a clear and well-founded argument. Some varieties of self-styled postmodernist thought, which the Sokal piece parodies, is just one example of that. But I have to take issue with the portrayal of sociology as a ‘joke’ in academic circles. In my own context at the University of Sydney, for example, there’s a new centre for the study of obesity and cardio-vascular disease, and while there’s no shortage of medicine and public health academics keen on getting involved, the Centre is also desperate to include social scientists, above all sociologists, because it allows them to make claims about their understanding of the social dimensions of this particular set of medical and health issues. In my view sociology as a field is in a very strong position in the broad array of scientific disciplines, because social change is an important dimension of how the world changes, as much as scientific or technological change. Personally I’d also say that if sociology is in a weaker position in some countries, much of that is attributable precisely to its success in changing the way people think, so that many sociological concepts are now experienced simply as common sense. I have to say I found the piece a cheap shot – I’m sorry, I can’t think of a more polite way to put it.

By: Rose Eveleth

Rose Eveleth — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:15:43 +0000

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the note, and clarification! I think the confusion between cultural studies and sociology happens a lot, so while the Sokal piece wasn’t in a sociology journal, it often gets lumped into some of the common criticisms of sociology. The whole Sokal affair is an entirely different debate I suppose, and, I think it’s worth nothing that it’s not like physics is without its controversies either, like the Bogdanov twins – which were published in journals that were peer reviewed.

Rose

By: Robert van Krieken

Robert van Krieken — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:56:57 +0000

One correction: the Sokal piece was not submitted to a sociology journal. It was submitted to Social Text, which describes itself as a cultural studies journal. Its publication did *not* generate ‘a call to re-evaluate just what sociological journals were publishing and how rigorous they could possibly be’, it raised questions about whether the humanities could sensibly comment on natural science, about Sokal’s ethics, and about the coherence of some varieties of postmodern theory. Another important feature of the Sokal case was that Social Text was not peer-reviewing at that time. As someone who regularly reviews for a variety of sociology journals, I can’t think of a single one which would have given Sokal’s piece a second glance. It’s not sociology that’s the joke, but something else entirely.

By: Brian Fellow

Brian Fellow — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:29:16 +0000

While I have no doubt that the move towards politicizing sociology came from the left, it is not a left or liberal movement per se. If you look at worldviews thru Milton Rokeach’s measure of “open vs. closed mindedness” you will find that liberals are over represented at the open minded end of the spectrum, but, there are at least a few very vocal closed minded individuals on the left end of the spectrum. I think you’d find that this movement is not a produce of liberals as much as its a product of closed mindedness.