Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:42:48 +0300 (EEST)
From: j laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: [FRA:] Re: Adorno and Empirical Sociology


Greetings

Claus is right. I was lazy and didn't bother to check the books. The
texts I had in mind are all in Band 8.

"Both band 9.1 and 9.2 of Gesammelte Schriften is devoted solely to
his empirical studies (...) It is only band 8 where his strictly
theoretical sociological essays are collected, they are of course a
bit philosophical (...)"

Philosophy is part of social sciences, especially cultural, social and
political philosophies, and of course philosophies of history, rights
and society. The most banal empirical research set-up includes also
philosophical issues, though there's usually not much time to pay
attention to them because of tight schedules. Methodological changes
have happened in (positive or negative) reference to epistemology.
20th century philosophy at the latest has showed that there is no
mystical direct ('unmediated' is the proper term) relation between
thinking or consciousness and the external reality: the myth of the
'given' is showed to be just a myth. So the experiential has turned
out to be problematic. It is understandable that ontological,
epistemological and such problematics are discussed also in
sociological circles. I have worked on both fronts (philosophy and
sociology). I don't get "allergic reactions" if I stumble on
philosophical passages and questions in a sociological text. However,
even I think that "a bit philosophical" is to underplay the nature of
some of Adorno's texts. Or we have different concepts of philosophy.
I do understand that many sociologist feel Adorno's texts unfamiliar.

Yet, every sociologist is used to read also philosophical texts,
because several of the key texts (i.e. texts that enlighten the
concept of sociology) of the grounding fathers were basically
philosophical (and not only those of Simmel). It's part of the
sociological training to read classical texts. However, that is
accompanied by interpretative texts with certain authoritative status
in order to explain to the student what this-or-that classic was
really saying. Result is that those classic texts gain certain kind of
established meaning in addition to being part of the disciplinary
heritage. It's different with those scholars and scientists who came
after the classic period. Expressions, questions and 'textual
strategies' different to mainstream disciplinary literature are easy
to bypass or ignore as non-sociological. Until someone presents
powerful enough argument to demonstrate the sociological significance
of certain author or text. Even that don't guarantee the acceptance.
It may be the case that, say, for (real or imagined) political or
other reasons some argument is kept hidden. Or fashion changes. Who
remembers great Vilfredo Pareto anymore? Marx has been a legitimate
reference only after 1960s (and may not be anymore in 2010's). Weber
the jurist is O.K. Schütz the jurist - who tried to justify certain
Weberian points - is not. Etc.

In such a modern world the theoretical example, or model, of the
critical theory is still very relevant indeed. It's not exemplary, I
think, but worth to look at as powerful early interdisciplinary and
cross-scientific effort. I sympathize with Felipe's program, provided
I've understood it properly. However, I'm not sure what
'post-metaphysical' means in "Adorno's type of "post-metaphysical"
discussion". Perhaps you will clarify that, Felipe?

BTW, I do agree that there are questions, that "MUST be discussed
outside the borders of specialized science, and in order to join the
discussion we may have to aknowledge the philosophical problems that
Adorno is willing to 'clarify'", as you wrote earlier.

The cultural studies movement has demonstrated that there are
scientific problems with cross-scientific and interdisciplinary
programs. Also for that reason I agree with Neil that the borders (or
was it boundaries?) of sociology have been too open and wide.

Yet I wouldn't begin the restrictive operations at the border on
philosophy, because according to my understanding 'philosophical' is
always present in 'empirical-scientific', as i tried to say at the
beginning of this post. I've found it more problematic when e.g.
politological, social psychological, economic, sociological and
historical issues, views, and empirical findings are intermingled
(because of contradicting theories or clashing theoretical backgrounds
of research). The example of critical theory might clarify on what
kind of problems it is possible to stumble across while trying to
carry out cross-scientific or interdisciplinary research. It is my
understanding that philosophy is usually rather fruitful in such
cases. Sorry for the digressions.

Sincerely, Jukka L