> 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.
************
No. Even a non-sociologist dolt like me knows that they're onto reflexivity in studying themselves in the process of studying social processes. How do you know it doesn't improve "the picture"? What's your solution to the subject/conject/object triad? What are your criteria for "measuring" improvement?
> 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
********
With the study of societies and classes, the final word/theory is there is no final word/theory.
Ian