That includes armchair social scientists, o’course (otherwise I’d likely be left talking to myself).
How exactly is psychology different from sociology? Sure, psychology in its current form purports to study the individual, but in most research and most theorizing, psychologists speak of a “typical” or “average” person of whatever population is being considered. How does it serve any individual to be homogenized in such a manner?
How does the field truly advance understanding of individuals when they’re aggregated in some form or other?
Riddle Me This, Social Scientists ...
»
- Sunni's blog
- Login to post comments
The answer is in the question...
“How does the field truly advance understanding of individuals when they’re aggregated in some form or other?”
It doesn’t. But nobody ever said that “individuals” were what they were interested in.
Psychologists have always applied the general to the specific, and sociologists have always applied the specific to the general. (That’s the only way I know they differ.) Both fields want to get the most for their buck by reducing the individual to the least amount of explanation – thereby simplifying their work and making it sound as if they’re knowledgeable at the same time. It's much easier to clump groups of people than try to diagnose and explain each one's idiosyncracy - which isn't abnormal at all.
(I don't have much use for either field at this point in my life. Sorry about that.)
Mostly, I agree.
That’s an excellent way of putting it, Pat—I hadn’t thought of the matter in that way before.
I am probably taking you too literally, but this is where I have problems—and it’s based on my own goals in pursuing my education. Until I started teaching in grad school, I was probably as pure a research–oriented person as exists: I wanted to expand the field’s understanding of how people actually work. Moreover, I was naïve enough to believe that the highly reductionistic research I saw going on across most of experimental and cognitive psychology was helpful—the best way to answer questions that could be then woven into a theoretical framework that made sense. I now know much differently, of course.
Taking you as literally as possible, very few social science researchers earn a lot of money doing what they do; if they do acquire a measure of renown, it’s more likely from side work, such as authoring books for the lay audience or giving speeches (which may have little to do with their work). I think the drive to understand fires most researchers still. Too bad so many flawed assumptions and inadequate methodologies persist.
All that said, no need to apologize to me; it’s pretty clear I don’t have much use for either field, either.
No, not literally
Well, not entirely, though many researchers do try to go for the money, much as they do in every field of science.
But I wonder sometimes, when I hear this or that theory presented about human nature, if some psychologists/sociologists don’t talk to hear themselves talk. They want the attention that some new idea brings.
Surely if they stopped to think, they’d realize that many ideas they present offer no insight or common sense that adds to proven criteria that’s been handed down before. Too many ‘theories’ are not given enough time to be proven; someone thinks of an idea, and he is off and writing about it - and of course the media picks it up, because it’s new and different, and disseminates it as fact!
The “bucks” are in prestige, being first to say it, and being stroked by the media (which may or may not lead to more money). This is true of anthropologists as well. Often what they say doesn’t seem to relate to what is known before... or they often distort known theories, or forget others, in their zeal to project some pet thought that they dreamed of last night.
I’d much rather have my problems worked out in the holistic manner that MamaLiberty suggests. I think it would not only be satisfactory for me, but – anticipating a permanent solution – it would serve society better over the long haul.
And none of this is personal, Sunni. Actually I'm relieved to know that you're questioning your field; it's akin to my (and ML's) questioning the field of nursing. Go for it!
A short note
I am currently reading along on John Taylor Gatto’s “The Underground History of American Public Education,” chapter by chapter as it’s presented at Lew Rockwell http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-uhae-13.html ; and just now finished reading Chapter 13, which came out this AM. If you have time (that’s not meant to be a joke though you may take it as one), you should read this chapter at least. He talks of B.F. Skinner and others, behaviorism, and psychologizing children in the school system. It’s perfect timing for this discussion.
In fact the entire book is a keeper.
Bombshell.
That’s how I think of that book. I read a hard copy, but have since found it online on Gatto’s own site too. I agree with your assessment, Pat: I cannot recommend The Underground History of American Education highly enough.
And now you won’t have to wait on whatever Rockwell’s publishing timetable is. :-)
Thanks for the link!
If I had the money right now, I’d buy the book.
Partially related to this blog, the blurb at “A Different kind of Teacher” says, “Like the earlier book, it shows the development of a schoolteacher's thought after time for reflection made thinking possible.”
Sad that too often we have no time for thinking while doing the job we’re trained for. We have to quit the job before we can expand our mental resources sufficiently to clarify the problems involved in the job we were doing.
Pat's right, I think.
I've never looked much at sociology, beyond the compulsory courses in college. It always seemed to me that they started with a desired answer and arranged the data to support it. But I could be prejudiced...
I studied rather more psychology, but was left with much the same conclusion.
In addition, since the body is a triad of the physical/chemical, mental/emotional and energy/spiritual, all must be considered together for any hope of understanding human beings and their problems.
I've come to believe that
I've come to believe that the only purpose of psychology now days is to find this mythical "normal" person and them shove everyone into this approved mold.