SOSC. Debate: Part Four

Was it you who said Sociology Honours students wouldn't take part in this debate for fear of jeopardizing their final grades? Cowardice in the extreme - or is that greasing?

I have been a sociology student for four years now and a bottom run member of staff (demonstrator) for two of my undergraduate years, a position which should show me both sides of the debate. I would like to make a few points.

Firstly, the conservatives versus radicals football game depends largely on what Charles Crothers termed 'the theory of charisma'. Much of the 'political intrigue' going on in the Department seemed to me to be personality conflicts resulting in lack of communication and negative stereotyping of 'the other side'.

If the conservatives did not enter into scintillating theoretical discussion, it's because the radicals weren't there to discuss with. Result - dry bores. Each side blames the other for lack of communication while cunningly recruiting unsuspecting naive students to their particular fold. My impression is that the Committee of Nine were thus recruited to the radical fold.

How sad it is if students come to the Sosc. Dept, to learn how to go good revolutionaries and change society. They will be bitterly disappointed. There are political groups who do that.

Sociology, as a discipline, never claims this indoctrinating role, as the Committee of Nine found out; however, sociology as a discipline should seek out and offer alternatives for views of society from which the student can choose.

But, and here I agree with the general tone of the Committee of Nine, this Sosc. Dept, disappears behind great rows of asterisks, brackets and etcs in an effort to mystify the masses. The few who last, reaching the rarified atmosphere of the post - B.A.Hons - junior-lecturer level, find that ego says 'I have risen above the mortals. I must keep them mystified'. Interestingly, some of these juniors are disciples of the departed radicals who are commonly but mistakenly attributed with wanting to dispel the asterisks.

Why has this come about? It is because Sociology is a figment of our collective imagination and doesn't actually exist? (Sometimes I wonder). Or is it because the lecturers themselves are uninspired with their work?

In my experience, I could count on one finger the number of lecturers who were really involved with their material. This lack of inspiration filters back to the students and is blamed, incorrectly, on the espionage of 'the other side'.

Why are they uninspired? Because they don't talk with each other. This is partly due to the fragmented physical layout of the Department but mainly to a lack of initiative or energy or both of any one staff member to organise feedback sessions among themselves and with students.

The man who should be doing this is suffocating under unjustified and unnecessary adminstrative paper work. (It is a general flaw in our educational system to promote teachers to top adminstrative positions and remove their teaching skills from the field. Each department should have a separate administrative position to release the teacher for his vocation). Hopefully, the creation of a Second Chair should help matters here. Only time will tell.

If students want inspired discussion, there is nothing but our own apathy to stop us from organizing staff - interdisciplinary staff - students, and nonuniversity people such as 'radical' politicians into groups for debate. I for one would like to promote this as something constructive rather than destructive, to alleviate the dissatisfaction being aired by writers to Salient. I invite, no, challenge, students and staff to join me in this.

My final question is: if the 'radicals' wanted to change the Department so much (and it does need a lot of improvement) why did they go away?