Interpretation vs. empirical falsification in sociology is like baldness -- it is difficult to pinpoint the line where it starts, but you can surely tell the difference between bald and not bald.
Imre Lakatos introduced a theory of science in which emprical evidence is weighted against institutional interests vested in mainaining scientific theories. In essence he argued that the first line of defence of any theoretical edifice against empirical falsifcation are "problemshifts" or auxiliary hypotheses to reinterpret the core of the theory and bridge the gap between it and contradicting empirical evidence (he also identified different ways of so doing, but that is besides the point here). The point I'm trying to make is that you will always find a ceratin degree of 'interpretation" in science -- theories are not just abandnoned at the first sight of contradicting evidence.
That, however, is much different from the literary activities that pass for science, especially social science. One example of it neoclassical economics that is basically a normative narrtive of how things ought to be, wrapped in incomprehensible technical jargon. Other examples include various cultural, ethnic and gender studies. This is literature or story telling not science.
To be sure, I think there are "gender studies" or "ethnic studies" that provided valubale contributions to social sciences. My favorite example is segmented labor market that were both empirical but also theoretical, that is moving forward the theory of organizations etc.
On the other hand, most of the talk that aims at maintaining group identity, complete with insider forms of talk, group-specific value systems, and the manufacturing of grievances and enemies, can qualify as religion (in the Durkheimian sense, as 'glue' for group cohesion) - but for the goddess' sake it is NOT science.
And when those folks claim that science is subjective therefore their claims as as good as any other -- they are like the proverbial felon who killed his parents and then asked the court for leniency because he is an orphan. They first expand the institutional boundaries of what is considered science by adding appropriate 'studies' departments to the academe. Once their subjective story telling is institutionally considered a part of 'science,' they claim that science is subjective, therefore their stories are supposed to have the same epistemological value as emprically testable statements.
Call me an epistemological reactionary, but there is a fire wall between various explorations into the subjective meaning of gender, ehtnicity, class, sexuality, oppression, etc. -- which are a part of literature; and empricially testable statements about the incidience of gender or ethnic - based victimization, forms of behavior prevalent among people in ceratin occupational categories, material causes behing social inequality, etc -- which are a part of empirical science.
I am not denying that literature and literary criticism can have heuristic value for sciences, but we also should be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction.
>
>The second question is, why do you cast the term working-class in male
>terms? Is there any reason for doing so? For instance you say:
>>hunting, fishing and male bonding are virtually defining features of the
>>white working class in America.
>
>The above makes it sound like there are no women in white working class
>America, or women don't bond, or their bonding is not a matter of
>working-class culture, or whatever they do doesn't constitute a 'defining
>feature'. (I say this while leaving aside the question of whether hunting,
>fishing, & male bonding are 'defining features of the white working class
>in America.')
Again 'all white male solidarity' is certainly not the 'politically correct' form of solidarity, it is also likely to be dysfunctional to defend class interests of the working class (Marxian false consciousness), but it is a prevalent form of solidarity among Caucasian blue collar workers in the US - whether we like it or not. My ex who used to work as an organizer for UNITE! told me that the one thing she could not stand was being treated like a 'girlie' by male unionists. I can also show you survey results that allow me to compare the views of American blue collar males on gender issues and compare them to similar classes in other countries, and I can assure you that they are very conservative. And that is an empirical fact that needs to be explained (calling it false consciousness instilled by bourgeoisie is NOT an explanation, unless demonstrated empirically).
It does not mean that other forms of solidarity, female bonding, etc. do not exist or are irrelevant.
regards,
Wojtek