page 7

SOSC. Debate Hots Up

The sociology debate took another twist as Christine Chan joined the front line with Charles Crothers to defend intellectualism, academia, and the American way. However, she is to be commended for laying open a few of the 'home truths' of Sociology - 'truths' that the Committee of Nine and others have questioned. She inadvertantly has dropped a few fundamental clangers that, I hope, will begin to show the reason for the discontent of those 'naughty' radicals.

There are five points that I would like to take up with her:

Firstly, Christine has learnt her sociology well - she refers to 'the theory of charisma' (i.e. the radicals have, without question, fallen in behind the mystical leadership of the left-wing lecturers and more broadly, left-wing intellectuals).

And so, the 'radicals' are not capable of analysing the position and theories of the left, and making them relevant to the surrounding society. No, they've all been duped. But, this is not such a good theory really. It means that if you could find someone with strong enough charisma, there would be no longer a left-wing political standpoint. It's a bit like saying that if Hitler had been a nice man the Second World War would never have happened.

So, the theory of charisma, like so much of sociological theory, ignores historical, political, socio-economic and ideological factors at any one time, and does absolutely nothing to broaden my understanding of the causes of things.

Christine also says, straight from dome dry sociological textbook, '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'. Yuk!!

Roughly, for those who have not yet penetrated the deep mysteries of sociology, this means that all the trouble in the sociology department occurs because we all don't get on with each other. 'If we could only be nice to each other, there would be no conflict.' This have grave consequences if we use this approach to analyse society, if only those selfish people who control the factories etc would share some of their profits, then there would be no strikes, wars or conflict.' If I might be so bold as to suggest that 10,000 people gathered at Rugby League Park last week for the union stop work meeting would tend to disprove this theory.

Secondly, she says that you will be disappointed if you take up sociology to become a good revolutionary. 'There are political groups who do that.'

There's the old sociology line in a nutshell. You mustn't mix 'Theory' and 'practice' - they must be kept apart. So you're allowed to study racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, inequalities in housing, education, health, conflict between classes etc, but you mustn't do anything about it. If you start to do something about these things, then that's political - and that's naughty.

This position is summed up beautifully in the graphic on the black person chained to a wall. To ask the black 'why he is chained to the wall' is sociological - to break the chains and release him is political. Ask yourself which one you would choose. Finally on this point, one more example. How do you best learn to bake a cake? Answer - you first of all sit down and bake a cake. But, in sociological terms, baking a cake is practice, it soils the pure theory of cake baking, and is frowned upon.

Thirdly, Christine follows up this point with another sociological gem - 'Sociology is a discipline should seek out and offer alternatives for views of society from which the student can choose'. This one's a bit more complex so bear with me.

Alternatives imply choice. And Christine would have us believe that sociology offers us choices. But unfortunately, there's one problem. All those choices are bound up with the one dominant ideology, related, in our case to capitalism. What does this mean? The best way to describe it is perhaps through example. Suppose someone locks you up in a small wooden box. Someone can offer you cigarettes, food, blankets, pillows etc, and you are allowed to choose, say, three items. But, all these choices are in terms of the fact that you are locked up in the box. What you really want - or the real choice - is for someone to smash open the box and set you free.

This is very similar to sociology. Sociologists offer choices, but they're all bound up within the framework of capitalism. The real choice is not offered. Why not - you guessed it - it's political!!!

Notice also that the persons being offered the theories are students - generally white, middle class kids who have had it pretty good. So, they are offered a choice to analyse society the way they want to, and live their lives accordingly - travelling, living in a commune, doing social work etc. But you talk to someone working in a factory or an office downtown, and see how one eyed, selective, and typically middle class these choices are.

Fourthly, Christine talks about the failings of the Sociology Department - the uninspired lecturers, lack of energy and initiative, the poor Head of Department bogged down in administration etc. But she like all the rest, have totally missed the point These things are a symptom, not a cause. The real issue, I believe, is 'why is sociology not relevant to modern society?' or, as has been asked by Sociology Student, 'why does sociology only describe, never explain?'. To be perfectly frank with you, the Evening Post offers about as much analysis of modern society as does sociology! (Don't waste three years, just spend 10c).

Once we start delving into this question of relevance, we come up against questions of ideology, of practice of the status quo, and of power. Many people have said, and I go along with it, that if sociology were to ask the right questions about society, it would begin to become involved in the question of power, who holds power, and where does it lie.

But the question would never be answered - because the powerful would hit back. So, in the meantime, sosc ships along its merry way and talks about 'minority groups', 'stereotypes' and 'socioeconomic status', and no-one is threatened, no-one is challenged, and fundamental questions are never answered.

Fifthly, (and lastly), Christine asks why the 'radicals' leave the department. Might I suggest that the reason is very similar to the reason why, on April 10 1968, people abandoned the Wahine.

Looking forward to a continuation of this debate.

A Radical Student