Archive for April 16th, 2013

My favorite response to the n+1 article claiming that there is “too much sociology” (as if that is even possible!) is by Nathan Jurgenson at The Society Pages.  Jurgenson focuses on the ridiculousness of writing an article using critical sociology that is critical of critical sociology and concludes that critical sociology should be abolished. He writes, in part:

Too Much Sociology” is the essay equivalent of hipsters making fun of hipsters, seemingly unaware that their anti-hipster position is the height of hipsterdom. The essay discusses “the Sociologists” as if they are separate from what the essay is itself doing, going on and on about critical sociology seemingly unaware of itself as a critical sociology essay. Doing reflexive critical sociology of critical sociology is a well-worn tradition within critical sociology. The strategy the article uses and arguments it wants to make are for more critical sociology, but, instead, incoherently and illogically, asks for less. And, yes, I fully understand that my critique here is also critical sociology, the difference being that I am aware of that and won’t then develop an illogical conclusion. My response here isn’t as much a disagreement with their argument; I’m saying that it simply doesn’t make sense on its own terms. Trying to create a theory that interrogates the links between power, discourse, and identity has as much of a chance of being outside of critical sociology as trying to put on an outfit that is outside the system of fashion.

So meta. So good.

Also see the excellent response by Jenn Lena at Whatisthewhat.

Read Full Post »