Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:02:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Neil McLaughlin <nmclaugh-AT-mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Subject: Re: Adorno and Empirical Sociology




>From my perspective, sociology and sociological theorists spend too much
time trying to resolve core philosophical questions as Filipe outlines,
and not enough time developing a theoretically sophisticated and
empirically grounded explanatory research.
But that is just my perspective, nothing more, nothing less.

Disciplinary boundaries have advantages as well as disadvantages.
My view is that sociology's boundaries are too weak at this point in time
not too rigid.
Again, my perspective.


There is no question that important political questions cannot be resolved
from within any particular social sciene, or by philosophy, I would add.

I have never been particularly convinced that Adorno added much to
political efforts to radically change our world in progressive directions.
In practical political terms.

A great philosopher, and analyst of culture?  Perhaps, and this an
important contribution.
But someone who can move sociology forward, or radical politics forward?
That I am not convinced of.
But I learn from these exchanges, so look forward to more..





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, filipe ceppas wrote:

>
> > 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.
>
> What can we say about literary criticism or metahistory debates? I don't
> think this comparison usefull at all. May you could argue more about it. I
> think that the importance of this issue as part of the discussion about
> "Adorno's contribuition to sociology", could be linked to the critic of
> clear disciplinary borders when we are thinking about, *and doing*
> sociological research (and the same goes for anthropology, literary
> criticism, metahistory debate, etc.). Don't you think so?
>
>