From: "Daniel Beland" <dbeland-AT-ucalgary.ca> Subject: Re: NY Times article on Riesman Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 12:01:05 -0600 Hiro: > (1) Has American sociology ever produced "public intellectuals" or "social thinkers" (e.g., Bourdieu in France and Habermas in Germany)? During the 1950s and early 1960s, Wright Mills was certainly a "public intellectual"! I could also mention Glazer and Moynihan and, in a different vein, Marcuse. The latter was not really a sociologist, but his perspective was more or less "sociological". Today, my understanding is that sociologists involved in the US public arena are mostly policy experts such as Skocpol and Wilson. Since the 1980s, no living US sociologist has been as preeminent as Bourdieu in France or Habermas in Germany. How can we explain this trend? Perhaps the tendencies described in Mills' Sociological Imagination, especially the dominance of "abstracted empiricism", is an important factor to take into account. Regression models are not really useful in the public arena! What you need is provocative - critical - ideas related to key political issues. Moreover, the structuration of the US academic field - in sociology - provides little incentives to participate in "public debates". The only exception: policy experts who can develop a so-called "professional discourse" on social and political issues. But a "public intellectual" is by definition someone who transcends academic boundaries and rejects the logic of expertise! Basically, they can publicly discuss issues that are not directly related to their research areas (cf. Bourdieu during the 1995 strikes!). Daniel Béland ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005