Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:03:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neil McLaughlin <nmclaugh-AT-mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Subject: Re: Adorno and Empirical Sociology



Jukka Laari's post lays out many issues worth discussing.
He is certainly right that there is no consensus about what "culture" is
within contemporary sociology, and many interesting debates within the
subfield of the sociology of culture relate to this, and other questions.
I don't think the sociologists would be able to agree on even a definition
of what theory is, actually, with the grand theorists in the European
tradition, the ethnomethodologists/symbolic interactionists/grounded
theorists, various Mertonian middle range looking for social mechanism and
explanations, and the various macro historical-comparative all differing
in what they mean by theory. And certainly they disagree about how they
think about evidence and methods, and of course these things are linked.

Some in our discussion group will be looking to emphasize Adorno's
methods, and one cannot tell in advance what they will find. Others find
Adorno's theoretical contributions more compelling.
What then might Adorno bring to sociological theory and research?
My sense is more will come out of his thinking about music than anything
else, but that is just my viewpoint.
A related question is what can the kind of work that Adorno and other
critical theorists did bring to intellectual life outside sociology and
other academic disciplines, that cannot be or has not been forged inside
these organizations? A different question, it seems to me, and the answer
to each question will partly depend on the reader/writer's own
relationship to various disciplines and academic discourses.


Personally, I am less interested in Adorno's views about sociology
(except for historical interest reasons, which are not unimportant, but
secondary to me, at least) than I
am about how his idea mights be used or developed within sociology.
Personally, I don't think he really knew that much about sociology,
particularly American sociology. And just as in the jazz writings, and the
writings on positivism, I think he polarizes issues with regard to
sociology so that we get unhelpful debates.
Sociology is a discipline, by the way, where just about everyone in the
discipline thinks the discipline is too narrow, not interdisciplinary
enough ect.  But, of course, it is the most pluralistic of the social
sciences theoretical, with the possible exception of anthropology.
And the least sectarian in its organizational committment to its own
discipline, of the social sciences.
National differences will come in to play here also, of course.
So lots of things to discuss.


Neil G. McLaughlin     			KTH-620
Associate Professor			McMaster University
Department of Sociology			Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail: nmclaugh-AT-mcmaster.ca		L8S 4M4
Phone (905) 525-9140 Ext. 23611		Canada

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, j laari wrote:

> Greetings!
>
> Basically, I agree with Neil McLaughlin's scepticism of Adorno's
> methodological worth for empirical research. However, theoretically
> Adorno may still have something important to say?
>
> Also, I don't find (in the contemporary sociologal theory) such a
> wide-ranging unanimity on the concepts and theories of cultur (and
> mass-media - IF they are essentially related) that we could say we
> have reached such a definite theoretical conception of culture that we
> could hastily dismiss certain previous conceptions. On the contrary, I
> think. There's not much commonly accepted 'truths' in sociology after
> the triple blow of logical (positivism and) empiricism,
> marxism-leninism, and postmodernism on the sociological reason after
> the WW2.
>
> (Oh, by the way, by 'theoretical' I don't mean the same as
> 'hypothetical' or somesuch as is common in contemporary human/social
> research; I stick to classical scientific sense of 'theorein' as
> 'self-conscious articulate consideration, examination and
> observation', to put it bluntly. That way unfruitful opposition of
> 'theoretical' and 'empirical' is avoided.)
>
> Besides, two non-sociological conceptions of culture have made impacts
> also on sociology: on the one hand the (social) anthropological
> conception of culture either as a totality of the life of community or
> as a way of life of it, and on the other hand (coming from cultural
> studies, I guess), the linguistic or semiotic conception of culture as
> signification or as significatory practice. They both dismiss
> sociological emphasis on the genuine specificity of modern society -
> they generalize in such a manner that we could say they present
> conception 'culture is everything'. Also, I'm not very happy with such
> sociological conceptions of culture that restrict culture to either
> mass media or consuming only, not to mention efforts to fuse culture
> and knowledge. That also would be quite unanalytic. Basically, I don't
> find any predominant or ruling sociological conception of culture.
>
> Now, and back to the theme, what should one think about all that from
> the social theoretical perspective? I.e. how does the problems of one
> specialized science relate to cross-scientific thinking like critical
> theory? I think there are lots of crucial issues that could be
> clarified and discussed in order to gain insight into Adorno's views
> on sociology. For instance, one could wonder the writings in
> "Gesammelte Schriften" that are put together as his "sociological
> writings", because from the perspective of post-WW2 empiricism
> Adorno's sociology is partly non-sociological (mostly philosophical?).
> Should that view be accepted, or should it be denied? Either way, what
> will be the consequences? I think these are quite serious issues.
>
> Sincerely, Jukka L
>
>