Well then, we agree on the point that too much cultural analysis, especially of the right, lacks any serious research basis.
That's a point made in: Scatamburlo, Valerie L. (1998). Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right's Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness. Counterpoints series, Vol. 25. New York: Peter Lang. In which she points out that while the Right has successfully understood the interrelationships between cultural, social, political, and economic concerns in popular discussions, many progressives have failed to do likewise. Meanwhile, left-wing intellectuals too often use "inaccessible and overly cryptic" language; or they simply dismiss the Right as "bigoted malcontents" without assisting activists by engaging in public debates over reactionary and oppressive policies. p. 229.
:-)
-Chip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:41 PM Subject: Re: Sociology and Explanations (Re: Hitchens responds to critics
> At 12:46 PM 9/27/01 -0400, Chip wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Ah, Wojtek, the sole reliance on resource mobilization theory is yesteday's
> >sociology (but at least not the totally outdated 1960's classical theory). So
> >that while you are right about how people are recruited into specific social
> >movement organizations (cohort groups--face-to-face recruiting by friends,
> >family, or co-workers), there is a revisiting of the role of culture,
> framing,
> >and ideology in social movements.
>
> Chip, If I recall, resource mobilization people did not ignore culture and
> ideology, they put it in the proper place (cf. the paper on frame alignment
> by Snow et al. I don't remeber the cite of the top of head). The most
> important part of it was not the the nature of culture itself, but
> behavioral models - the "mentalist" model in which actions result from the
> processing of ideas in an individual's mind (i.e. rat choice, discontent,
> sublimations, etc.) and the "instituionalist" model in which an
> individual's actions are triggered by his/her social surroundings (norms,
> expectations, legitimacy concerns, social connections to other people,
> interactionw with otehr people, imitation, etc.) and those actions may be
> ex post facto rationalized by linking it to desirable motives and reasons
> (i.e. I joined a social movement because the woman I was dating was a part
> of it so I hoped to get an extra bj or two, but then I rationalized it to
> myself and others that I supported the movement's goals anyway).
>
> I am a staunch supporter of the institionalist model, but that is not my
> main reason of wanting to puke each time I hear the word "culture." The
> main reason is that "studying culture" is often an excuse for not doing a
> serious emprical science, but high brow journalism instead. It is one
> thing to, say, watch a movie and then to review and critique it in a Sunday
> edition of the local paper - which is a legitimate pursuit - and it is a
> quite different thing to do the same, then habermasize it by throwing a few
> obscure words and a lots of citations, and call it "research," "sociology,"
> or "critical theory." I often have an impression that overly ambitious
> people unwilling or unable to do a serious analytical and empirical
> research work substitute that inability or unwillingness with cultural
> commentaries which they call science but which are NOT science. That is
> why I often sympathize with hanns Johst (an otherwise despicable nazi
> playwright) who wrote "Wenn Ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen
> Browning." Ok, I do not have a Browning (or any equivalent), I just want
> to puke.
>
> Wojtek
>
>