What do you think of the field of sociology? Are they worth getting into?
I took a class in sociology and I didn’t learn much. For one it felt like Marxist indoctrination and the topics that were not politically charged didn’t seem to be based on any solid theoretical grounding. My sociology teacher believes that people became sexually repressed so that they will become more productive to support the capitalist society. WTF!!! The theories that did make sense don’t have practical applications. I studied neo-marxists like Horkheimer, Giddens, Herbert Marcuse, and others included in the Frankfurt school. It seems to obscure rather than enlighten. Sociological discourse is so abstract, kinda like that conceptual jungle Stefan Molyneux talks about. But I could be wrong. What do you think?
Max Weber (a famous sociologist) might have been of the German Historical school, but he was pretty free market (or at least strongly anti-socialist). He came up with an argument against socialism which was similar to Mises’s. So I wouldn’t say that sociology is completely worthless. Furthermore, I’d say there could be some interesting fields of study that a praxeologist could engage in when it comes to sociology.
Was he? He was an antipositivist and a fan of Mises’ Theory of Money and Credit as well, seems unlikely that he’d be part of the German Historical School. I could be wrong though.
Sociology is largely, for whatever reason, a very statist-dominated field of study. I’ve always said, somewhat jokingly, that the only Marxists left these days are children, sociologists, and English teachers. However, I think sociology and praxeology could have a very interesting future together and there are certainly sociologists worth reading: Foucault, Nisbet, Sumner, Spencer, and Helmut Schoeck, among others.
According to this, Weber was a member of the German Historical school. Since I’m not familiar with Weber’s works, I can’t really say whether he is or is not on my own.
I think the sociology of people like Max Weber are very different from the brand of sociology today. Today, sociology is based on the belief of some abstract ‘society’. It does not consider that society is just a group of individuals in the same way as a forest is a group of trees. Their starting point is ‘society’ or ‘structures’, not the individual, and they use collective reasoning to reach conclusions. Superficial starting point makes their conclusions rather dubious from a praxeological standpoint. In my opinion, sociology cannot be reconciled with praxeology. Which is what makes me wonder if modern sociology has any merit at all.
I consider that sociology and economics should be exceedingly close areas of study and quite frankly I can’t understand what the difference between Rothbard’s general method of study and sociology really were.
I consider that sociology would, in its current state, naturally be dominated by heavy statist because modern “ivory tower” intellectuals almost always see the world and society as something that they can design perfectly from the top down… In other words they hold an entirely statist attitude. I think it might be worth while looking into some of the stuff but only as a sideline, I consider economics to be a far clearer examination of society than sociology.
In that article, Hayek along with Leon Bramson and others are claimed to have shown that the purpose of sociology is to push classical liberalism out of the intellectual debate.
Do you know how Hayek did this? In what book does he explain this?
I took sociological courses all the way to the most advanced courses in that field offered at the university. It is a field full of mush. Sitting through the the intro course was haphazard at best. It was fact given about this instance written on the chalkboard by the professor and then he would draw a line on the board and then move on to another fact disconnected from the previous factual topic. Another line on the board and another distinct topic. There was no theory that coherently put it all together. Then by the last course called Social Theory where all the sociological theories or as many as the professor would gloss over, were discussed. The reason why was discovered. The professor reminded us nearly every day that there isn’t one social theory that works. Some partially work and some work but actually conflict with each other - yet - somehow they both worked and thereby only offered different perspectives on the same data. He made it sound like if you go onto graduate school you could be the one that makes the big theoretical breakthrough that puts all the various data in the field together into a coherent understanding. That was about 4-5 years ago and I’m sure not much has changed.
Also I took many anthropology courses and anthropologists of the ‘participation observation’ school which is similar to praxeology to a degree always made a fuss about how sociologists, to put it simply, have no idea what they are doing. The participation observation school recognized that the only way to truly understand a society was to participate in that particular society and do what they do while observing ones own experience in doing what they do, taking notes, cultivating confidence and trust with them to learn more about their life ways. They say this had it’s limits as well because to know a society, for one, one would have to be born in that society and actually live it lifelong. That would have it’s limits too though because then how does one go around learning about different cultures if one had to stay in one culture ones whole life. Staying in one culture without contrasting it with others whether through trade or visiting possibly develops bias perspectives on ones own cultures, meaning, outsiders to any culture sometimes contrast any local society by their different cultural perspective. This contrasting between different cultures makes it easier at times to realize cultural distinctions in the first place that a local wouldn’t readily know because to them it was somewhat natural since it had always been that way and they never knew there were other cultural ways, etc…, which goes back to how does one truly know another culture unless such a person lived there their whole life, going through the various biological aging and experiencing all that goes along with living in such a culture each day, night, season, age development, political means, etc…
I only took an intro course in sociology so far. So my knowledge about sociology is limited. I really don’t see any inherent reason why sociology would eliminate collectivism, or, why it would eliminate market economics. All it intends to do is to try to show the cultural factors that influence the individual.
I mean… people all have individual choice with their actions, but you need to take into account the other factors of action as well. So… I know that leftists and population reductionists dominate the sociological field… but like is there any reason why it inherently has to be this way? You guys shouldn’t just hate on a field just because a lot of people with opposite ideological tendencies as we do tend to dominate it.
Good thing you have access to praxeology cause they didn’t teach it at the university I went to.
I didn’t say anything remotely related to what you wrote here. Maybe you only replied to my post but really didn’t intend it to be a response to me? Which is fine.
Well I have been studying communication in college. The closest thing to praxeology in the field of communication is the idea of free-will within communication theory and that people generally have control over what they do.
I was replying to people in this topic in general. That’s why I didn’t specifically hit the quote button on any one post- I was trying not to give the impression that I was responding to anyone. I was merely asking a question to the whole group.
I see. Also, on the notion on free-will. At least with communication theorists…
I’m taking a communication theory class and I’ve learned about the whole free-will vs not free-will approach. I know Mises doesn’t care about free-will. He thinks that people make their decisions with a purpose. And it doesn’t matter if people have control of their decision or not. But most people don’t frame it like that. At least within intellectual discussions within the field of communication with regards to free-will, people either take a rules approach to research, or a systems approach to research.
The rules approach indicates that people have general control of their decisions but they’re restrained by rules, about what they can do and what they cannot do (there are theories that take the rule approach), and the other approach is the systems approach. The systems approach is that things are interconnected and people have free-will for the most part but are restrained by the system itself. Both branches believe in individual choices.
There’s also the covering law approach that people take where people don’t believe in free-will take. This is the approach used by people who believe in more of a scientific view that behavior is predictable and that people are governed based on communication laws that can be uncovered.
The field of communication is not dominated by any one view. So that’s kind of why I was saying that I don’t see why the field of sociology would exactly negate praxeology. The field of communication allows for multiple views… I mean I understand that sociology is dominated by leftists who believe people are always being oppressed by capitalists. I’ve taken a sociology course and my textbook explained capitalism as a system where owners exploit the workers (I mean how obvious of a bias can you have than that?)… but I don’t see why the teachings of sociology would negate individualism. As I’ve already expressed- the field of communication doesn’t do that. So why should sociology?
Praxeologic studies social phenomena, ie. sociology, premised by the axiom human action. That is the starting point that differs from the other theories. Humans are social animals, so no, sociology as a field doesn’t negate praxeology as praxeology would only better the study of social phenomena.
Okay. I understand that. But why can’t sociology be more like the field of communication? As I’ve already mentioned, the field of communication allows for the traditional sociological view, that people are governed by society, and, laws and what-not. The field of communication also allows more of a praxeological approach to studying human phenomenon. Even with critical theorists in communication- they’re not limited only to a dogmatic sociological approach. They can take an interpretive approach studying human behavior within the realm of human choices and free-will. And you can take a praxeological approach to the rules-theory approach, and, with the systems approach.
I guess a better question would be… why couldn’t take more of a praxeological approach to it? I wasn’t asking why should sociology do it- if I did- I made a mistake. But… I don’t see why sociology should just leave all of its field to the collectivist approach. Even the field of communication doesn’t do that.
I guess what I’m wondering is why sociology has let itself become dominated by a bunch of marxists and communists. The field of communication hasn’t been dominated by any one particular ideology. If you dislike sociology as a social science- you should check out communication theory. I think it would be much more up your ally. That’s what I’m studying right now and I don’t see nearly the same problems that plague sociology that are in the field of communication.
I was taught that Max Weber opposed capitalism (the iron cage). Either way, here’s my impression of sociology: it asks every question but answers none. It’s all over the place (history, economics, psychology, public choice ect).
Because that’s the field marxist deal with, ie. society. Social workers are one of, if not, the largest population that come out of sociology. They are people once they have a degree can amazingly invade other people’s homes for sometimes the most nonsensical things. Social workers (case workers) are one of the most controversial applications of the gov’t allowed in today’s society. It’s not as if the gov’t, ie. case workers, are always involved in situations that are in accord with the rights of individuals. Other fields within sociology being that they are trained in social engineering for that’s what they learned all that stuff for, to some day to get a job that uses what they learn. Those fields they are trained in get jobs that socially engineer society and what is supposedly best for society is in and of itself self-evident as to what the downside of all of that would entail. In other words, they somehow know what is best for society and try to mold it according to their whims. Unfortunately, it puts some people into power positions to fiddle around with other people’s lives. What Marxist wouldn’t like most fields in sociology?
Social research informs politicians and policy makers, educators, planners, lawmakers, administrators, developers, business magnates, managers, social workers, non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, and people interested in resolving social issues in general. There is often a great deal of crossover between social research, market research, and other statistical fields."
Here’s more to add to what krazy kaju had noted as follows:
From the Foreword to Mises Epistemological Problems of Economics
–
Weber is discussed quite often in that book of Mises. Mises didn’t throw everything out Weber offered. The ideals that Weber discusses, in an Aristotelian framework that Mises had access to with Menger, gain an appearance to what species are (anybody familiar with the Linneus system in biology will instantly understand that term which find it’s roots in Aristotle’s works and other Greeks), and the types that Carl Menger worked with. I can’t fully express what Mises denounced and what he supported but that book of Mises does.
Weber did attempt theories which in general the German Historical School is not known for, but that school is a general notion for a hodgepodge of various authors. Some of Weber’s approaches are of use especially when combined with praxeology and that is the intellectual privilege that praxeology offers to various disciplines. Praxeology possibly heals intellectual works that were ill, revive it, and turn it into something it never could have been without. Mises points out Weber didn’t go far enough into latching his theories with aprior methodology which is a fundamental flaw of the German Historical School and so steps in Praxeology to salvage what could be salvaged, and that’s basically what happens during a paradigm change.
Society is what we deal with all the time. I guess what I’m saying is that the field of communication deals with people and how they see the world and interact with each other. Communication borrows largely from sociology and other fields, that, people here tend to dislike. Sociology is supposed to probe the greater problems of society. It’s supposed to ask questions about why people are impoverished and what-not. Why social inequality exists. I guess that such a field would naturally lend itself to being dominated by leftists… but I’m just saying it doesn’t have to be. Take a look at what communication theory has to offer…
From wikipedia:
The Academic Study of Communication
Communication has existed since the beginning of human beings, but it was not until the 20th century that people began to study the process. As communication technologies developed, so did the serious study of communication. When World War I ended, the interest in studying communication intensified. The social-science study was fully recognized as a legitimate discipline after World War II.
Before becoming simply communication, or communication studies, the discipline was formed from three other major studies: psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Psychology is the study of human behavior, Sociology is the study of society and social process, and anthropology is the study of communication as a factor which develops, maintains, and changes culture. Communication studies focus on communication as central to the human experience, which involves understanding how people behave in creating, exchanging, and interpreting messages.[citation needed]
Communication Theory has one universal law posited by S. F. Scudder (1980). The Universal Communication Law states that, “All living entities, beings and creatures communicate.” All of the living communicates through movements, sounds, reactions, physical changes, gestures, languages, breath, etc. Communication is a means of survival. Examples - the cry of a child (communication that it is hungry, hurt, cold, etc.); the browning of a leaf (communication that it is dehydrated, thirsty per se, dying); the cry of an animal (communicating that it is injured, hungry, angry, etc.). Everything living communicates in its quest for survival."
I mean… I’m just saying… you don’t have to ignore the problems of the individual to study the larger aspect of society and how individuals interact with it.