On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, joanna bujes wrote:
> Miles writes:
>
> "Why do you think understanding
> society is so easy that people can do it by relying on
> everyday concepts and knowledge? That's like saying
> somebody can understand the structure of the solar
> by applying common-sense words like "sunrise" and
> "sunset"."
>
> The difference is that human beings have not built the solar system, but
> they have created social structures and institutions. If we cannot find
> a common language with which to describe the social structures and
> institutions we want to build, then there is no hope.
>
> I believe we can find that language and I believe that it is the most
> pressing duty of those who call themselves intellectuals to help us in
> that endeavor.
>
> Joanna
I don't really follow: the fact that we have built social institutions is irrelevant to the complexity or transparency of the language used to describe it. A computer is built by humans; a rock is not. Why assume the computer is simpler to analyze or describe? (Note this same argument applies to family systems, religion, formal education, economic arrangements.)
Human societies are wonderfully complex. From my perspective, the intricate relationships among social institutions and social practices within those institutions is every bit as complicated as the human genome or quantum physics, and a through knowledge of these complexities (just as in other sciences) will require diligent research and innovative theory. --And sometimes this complex scientific work will not be accessible to the general public.
Yes, political activists have different (and equally important!) priorities here. However, the political mandate for "clarity" in any social theorizing--not just political pamphlets!--is a bit too Procrustean a bed for me.
Miles