> I am flabbergasted. The firsttime I read your post excerpted below, I
> thought you were making some such subtle point as, there si no
sociological
> explanation of what tips a few people over theedge to do evil (or indeed
> good), because sociology is statistical. That's psychology, not sociology,
> maybe.
> But on rereading, I see that you actually actively reject the attempt to
> explain great evil, apparently on the theory that evil would be excused or
> justified or condoned if it could be explained.
I know- you and Doug find it odd that a sociologist-trained person rejects sociological explanations in any situation, but at some point, social theories that depend not just statistically but ultimately ontologically on some idea of the mean of human nature fail in the face of extreme actions.
Social science would love to reach the Newtonian conceit that if we could just understand the initial positions of each cosmic billiard ball, we could predict every future position and alignment of matter. But that conceit has failed in the face of quantum indeterminancy and complexity theory of shattered patterns.
A good student of Durkheim will note that extreme conditions will make certain anti-social acts, from suicide to crime, more likely. Fair enough. But that is an analysis of irrationality being bred in extreme conditions, not of linking particular causes with particular effects.
There is no explanation for any single act of irrationality or, to step away from Durkheim, evil that suddenly is unleashed at the extreme. Such acts of extreme irrational hatred and self-destruction are not within any rational calculus of likely cause and effect, of game theory, or any other approach to understanding particular conflict.
There is not some continuum between protest rally and mass murder in understanding the escalation of conflict-- there are disjunctures where the bell curve of action jumps the tracks, crashes into chaos, and the actions we see in the world are irrational and unexplainable by any useful social science calculus.
I insist on the word evil, much to Doug and yours chagrin, because it captures exactly the inexplicable nature of certain acts that go beyond the limits of the typical means-ends dillemmas we all face to a completely different realm outside normal human calculation of right and wrong acts.
I am a rationalist but one who, through rational understanding, recognizes the limits of that very rationality. There are human acts that are unexplainable- we deal with them, we may even try to reduce the conditions of misery that increase the sum total of irrational extremes, but that does not mean there is any rational explanation of any particular act on that fringe, since the form it may take is chaotic and unknowable. Any nominal motives or explanations are merely gloss, like kids seizing on computer games or heavy metal music in clothing their school massacres.
All that said, I've clearly argued that the left response to the talk of war should be to argue for broad solutions to alleviate human misery, to isolate would-be mass murderers from the support networks that make the scale of their damage possible, and so on. One thing extreme misery does is make otherwise rational people not recognize the evil and irrational among us and thereby helps them seize power and influence.
Sociology can therefore explain Nazi sympathizers but not Hitler or his inner circle. Similarly, sociology can explain Palestinians cheering in the streets of Nablus, but not Bin Laden and his network.
While I find leftwing attempts to "explain" the causes of Sept 11 ridiculous and offensive, I find those "explanations" of the Right equally sad and offensive. A bit more security on our airlines - start with paying more than minimum wage to the security guards is a start - is a smart response but the global hysteria seeking explanation of THIS event is doomed.
I don't believe in God but most religious thought is as easily understood as parables of grappling with the unknowable in life. "Evil"- or if you prefer statistically chaotic activity of a negative form - happens. The test is not explaining it or, to a certain extent, even stopping it (although its effects can be limited), but in how we ourselves confront it, whether matching it with our own irrational hatred or rising above and recognizing our better humanity.
I think there is plenty of opportunity by the Left to encourge the latter, but harping on ultimately unexplainable causes is a dead end and far more likely to awaken the former.
Nathan Newman