>At 02:15 PM 3/23/01 -0800, Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:
>
>> > Kelley, instead of getting mad, why not consider a possibility that
>>> your allegiance to Max Weber & his likes may be (among other things)
>>> an integral part of your socialization as a sociologist -- adopting
>>> Weberspeak as a part of *moral* norms of your profession, so to
>>> speak, rather than just a part of the body of theoretical knowledge
>>> whose mastery you must demonstrate as a professional -- since
>>> socialization is the topic of your post?
>>>
>>> It's probably an implicit professional assumption that it is "a
>>> combination of moral & theoretical errors" for a properly socialized
>>> sociologist not to *think like Weber*.
>>>
>>> Yoshie
>>*********
>
>put a sock in it, yoshie. weber wasn't given any credence at all in
>my dept! it was a feminist and multiculti dept after they kicked the
>dead white guys off to the side. the continuous rant was "we don't
>bow to the altar of the holy trinity: marx, durkheim and weber. i
>study people and take seriously authors with whom i disagree so that
>i actually know what i'm talking about rather than knee jerk dismiss
>them like my colleagues who don't know jack about weber! or
>durkheim! or SF. they just "know" that they're wrong and off they
>merrily go.
>
>reflexivity alert! no doubt.
Isn't the exemption of the self of the sociologist himself/herself from the application of social theory also a part of the professional assumptions of sociologists? "Everyone else is socialized (probably in a pathological fashion), but I'm not -- I'm a free-thinking individual," "I know what I'm talking about, but everyone else is in ideology," or so the professional narrative goes. Postmodern consciousness of one's own so-called "complicity" in "discourse" doesn't improve upon the old professional assumption of "being outside the picture" either.
On the question of the paradox of ideology, I recommend that you take a look at Justin Schwartz, "The Paradox of Ideology," _Canadian Journal of Philosophy_ 23.4 (December 1993), pp. 543-574.
Marx talked about middle class, but I doubt he ever mentioned "upper-middle class." :-)
Yoshie