>>Charles --Durkheim-- Jannuzi wrote:
>>I think this is the title--it's one of Kelley's portmanteau pile >>ups in
which her discourse attempts to swallow the world.
No Durkheim me, since I completely reject the idea that sociology has a legitimate, distinct subject matter or that sociology as 'science' could ever be about irreducible social laws that predict the interactions of social 'objects' (ditto economics).
>which, as i said, is belied by the claim you advanced where >individuals
and societies seek a state of equilibrium--a hallmark of >organicist--that
is structuralist--theories of individuals and >societies. and, of course,
your claim about individuals and >societies is one developed by
sociologists, among others, so you >should take it easy on yourself.
self-hatred is so destructive.
Not all organicist approaches are 'structuralist' in the social scientific sense. Though Durkheim was clearly a structuralist, I'm not at all clear about his organicism.
My philosophy of social science might be more akin with biological reductionism, which we find even in post-structuralism.
I believe the last time I discussed this topic on this list was in differentiating between the sort of organicism that tends to do down the benighted path of totalitarianism and racism and the sort Burke posits.
The way you use the term it sounds more like a sociological pigeon hole, which, I admit, sociology is quite good for.
I just find it remarkable that after a century of global genocide and annihilation, the world population continues to go up and up. Clearly, as good as we are at killing each other, we're even better at reproducing ourselves.
Charles Jannuzi