Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume Number 39, Issue 5. March 29 [1976]

Sociology Debate

page 7

Sociology Debate

Cherub fishing in a pond

This letter is another in the continuing debate on the goings-on in Sociology. We invite all members of the Sociology Department (both students and staff) to contribute to the debate. All letters will be published.

Dear Sir,

It was heartening to see Charles Crothers sword in one hand, shield in the other, defending the Sociology Dept, from a severe mortar attack of the Committee of Nine.

However, I do feel that Charles has missed the point. The Committee of Nine were concerned about the growing conservatism in the Department, the slow strangling of any debate that threatens the consensus' model of society, and the painful castration of those who attempt to offer an alternative approach. The result of all this is rows of mindless students being fed large helping of 'The Sociology of the Obvious!'.

An important step in the development of this trend was taken with the appointment of Prof Hill to the Department.

When the new position was created in the Department, the powers that be ignored at least one suitable applicant from within the Department, and set their sights on the overseas market, presumably to 'maintain international sociological standards'.

However, initial advertising for the position was minimal, and as a result, a great wealth of people, who are at present engaged in crucial debates on structuralism, Marxism, the role of the State, the role of Sociology in the State apparatus etc, remained untapped. Instead, the Department chose yet another expert on the Sociology of Religion - (these experts are incidently, almost as common as B.A.'s, though twice as expensive).

And so, while the Department moves quietly about the musty corridors of the consensus model, Victoria moves further and further away from any discussion and debate that could blow fresh air through the stale and stagnant Weberian/Parsonian approach. Once again, the question of Why does Sociology only describe, never Explain?' goes unanswered.

As far as the Committee of Nine's course evaluation table is concerned, I feel that Charles has, like so many of his colleagues, dived thirstily into the vat of empirical data, and has lost sight of the essential criticisms in the article. The results of the small survey were not intended to form the foundation of some law on popularity - they were to be used merely as an indicator. In rather typical fashion, Charles rushes off and dissects, injects and infects the material, and concludes that Salient and the Committee of Nine are dishonest in using such statistics.

Although he is correct in saying that such measurements are subjectively defined, is this not a criticism that can be levelled at Sociology in general? We have only to pick up any Sosc. Textbook and peel away the mountains of complex data, mathmatical symbols, obscure passages on methodology and theory, to find that it all rests on subjectivity - the subjectivity of the approach.

And if it is dishonest for Salient to publish such tables, then surely it is dishonest for the Sosc. Dept, to continue to teach a subject that is based on such subjective assumptions.

Which leads me to my last point. It is sad fact that only a small minority in the Sosc. Dept are capable, politically, to analyse clearly this dishonesty. Even worse the majority in the Dept, do not even see that such dishonesty exists. Those who attempt to bring forth this dishonesty are thrown out in the cold. The machine of conservatism deals very effectively with its critics. Hail the age of Conservatism.

Sociology student.