Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:54:08 -0300
Subject: Re: Adorno and Empirical Sociology
From: filipe ceppas <fceppas-AT-terra.com.br>


Dear Neil, 

Your perspective sounds very realistic, although I do not know much of more
up to date sociological researchs and debates to say anything about it. It
seems realistic because of other branches I know a little at least (as
literary criticism). Anyway, I was talking just from the perspective of the
"bondary questions" that I found here at the list.

But, despite all that, the question turns to good sociological works within
the actual "theoretical-philosophical predominance" research that are close
to Adorno's type of "post-metaphysical" discussion. If I'm not wrong, I
think that only one fellow have mentioned a published work since Claus have
asked for reference: Ralf Rogowski told us about Alex Demirovic's book,
saying that it is the best he knows (are there others not so good but
readable?). It would be interesting to have more references (specially
translated ones, for those who not read German), be it "empirical" or
"theoretical". I know some interesting theoretical works on education, like
Christoph Wulf (Introduction aus sciences de l'éducation, Paris: Arnabd
Colin, 1995), Rodriguez Rojo (Hacia una Didáctica Crítica, Madrid: Ed. La
Muralla, 1997), H.J. Heydorn (articles published on Portuguese at
Brazilian's reviews) and others. Althought they don't do any empirical
research, their work are used by people that does it, althought I think it
is really not a big deal.

It seems that ask for sociological work from Adorno's perspectiva, be it
just "theoretical", is still at stake, because of the most popular
aesthetical and philosophical recent published works about Adorno ideas,
which are mentioned more often here.

I would add just a note about another bondary that came up with your last
comment: particular social sciences and philosophical outcomes vs.
resolution of important political questions. Well, I remember that we
already had here extended discussion about this issue. Maybe it could
explain why the unexpected silence since yesterday.

Cheers, flp.

> From: Neil McLaughlin <nmclaugh-AT-mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
> Reply-To: frankfurt-school-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:02:12 -0400 (EDT)
> To: frankfurt-school-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> 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?
>> 
>> 
> 
>