About the last post, I guess many find it very strange to hear sociologists talking about universality. This is because, allegedly, one should be more sensitive to difference, to the specific. Also, supposedly, one should practice the suspicion and be able to debunk the idea of \u200b\u200buniversalism: a discursive facade that tries to be plausible, but it serves to camouflage the unspeakable, ie, domination, subjugation and imperialism. Supposedly
. That seems to be what is expected of you, both among friends among sociologists as "critical." Here
could dwell at length on the difficulties faced by individuals like myself to have studied a race like this. The difficulties, for example, falling in the domestic liberal political theory (Constant , Rawls, Berlin , etc.) With the social theory (Bourdieu , Foucault, etc.). But in truth I will stop briefly in a good spot problem: that of cultural relativism.
Indeed, it is not so original. Cultural relativism, in short the idea that cultures are not better than others, can be compatible in practice with the idea that there are universal values \u200b\u200b(human rights, for example) one considers inviolable. The trick is to take on relativism, but only as a methodological stance, not automatically move it to the political-moral.
What happens is that without relativism as a methodological stance is impossible to make a good research. If you approach an object of study with the intention to judge or condemn to hell, the final result at most would be like a bad story complaint, not to genuine social research. In short, without being methodologically relativist can not understand anything.
The problem is when you take that position too easily to the political-moral. That's when the problems appear, as said earlier: think it's common to wait for a sociologist is relativistic in all areas . However, it is perfectly possible to separate one from the other, in other words, one can safely argue that stoning and female circumcision are worth wild and it's not a bad sociologist.
. That seems to be what is expected of you, both among friends among sociologists as "critical." Here
could dwell at length on the difficulties faced by individuals like myself to have studied a race like this. The difficulties, for example, falling in the domestic liberal political theory (Constant , Rawls, Berlin , etc.) With the social theory (Bourdieu , Foucault, etc.). But in truth I will stop briefly in a good spot problem: that of cultural relativism.
Indeed, it is not so original. Cultural relativism, in short the idea that cultures are not better than others, can be compatible in practice with the idea that there are universal values \u200b\u200b(human rights, for example) one considers inviolable. The trick is to take on relativism, but only as a methodological stance, not automatically move it to the political-moral.
What happens is that without relativism as a methodological stance is impossible to make a good research. If you approach an object of study with the intention to judge or condemn to hell, the final result at most would be like a bad story complaint, not to genuine social research. In short, without being methodologically relativist can not understand anything.
The problem is when you take that position too easily to the political-moral. That's when the problems appear, as said earlier: think it's common to wait for a sociologist is relativistic in all areas . However, it is perfectly possible to separate one from the other, in other words, one can safely argue that stoning and female circumcision are worth wild and it's not a bad sociologist.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment