Summary Critical Thinking in Sociology

‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌

CRITICAL‌‌THINKING‌‌

IN‌‌SOCIOLOGY‌ ‌
2018-2019‌ ‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌

SOCIAL‌‌SCIENCES‌ ‌ ‌PROF.‌‌VANDEBROECK‌ ‌
D.L.Y.‌ ‌


‌

, 1.‌‌Toward‌‌a‌‌sociology‌‌of‌‌“Critique”‌ ‌
1.1.‌‌Towards‌‌a‌‌Sociological‌‌Definition‌‌of‌‌“Critique”‌ ‌
● Tweet,‌‌Neil‌‌deGrasse‌‌Tyson:‌‌Neil‌‌deGrasse‌‌Tyson‌‌is‌‌an‌‌American‌‌astrophysicist,‌‌author,‌‌and‌‌science‌‌
communicator.‌ ‌
1.1.1.‌‌Similarity‌‌sociology‌‌and‌‌exact‌‌sciences‌ ‌
● All‌‌sciences‌‌are‌‌fundamentally‌‌about‌‌questioning‌‌and‌‌finding‌‌answer‌‌the‌‌‘why’‌‌question.‌ ‌
● This‌‌implies‌‌that…‌‌ ‌
○ there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌reason‌‌why‌‌things‌‌are‌‌the‌‌way‌‌they‌‌are‌‌(i.e.‌‌things‌‌are‌‌not‌‌random)‌ ‌
○ this‌‌reason‌‌can‌‌be‌‌discovered‌‌using‌‌the‌‌method‌‌of‌‌positive,‌‌empirical‌‌sciences‌‌(observation,‌‌
experiment,‌‌survey,‌‌analysis,‌‌etc.)‌ ‌

● Social‌‌sciences:‌‌reason‌‌why‌‌things‌‌are‌‌the‌‌way‌‌they‌‌are‌‌should‌‌be‌‌located‌‌in‌‌particular‌‌organization‌‌of‌‌human‌‌
groups‌‌(i.e.‌‌social‌‌structure)‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌classroom‌‌patterns:‌‌further‌‌from‌‌professor,‌‌more‌‌men‌‌→‌‌why?‌‌men‌‌tend‌‌to‌‌sit‌‌in‌‌the‌‌back‌‌
because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌to‌‌be‌‌independent‌‌and‌‌women‌‌sit‌‌in‌‌front‌‌because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌made‌‌to‌‌listen‌‌and‌‌
⇒
understand‌‌ ‌‌sexist‌‌bullshit,‌‌i‌‌was‌‌in‌‌the‌‌back,‌‌last‌‌row‌‌only‌‌females‌ ‌

● In‌‌modern‌‌Western‌‌societies‌‌appeals‌‌to‌‌God‌‌or‌‌religious‌‌forces‌‌increasingly‌‌rare‌‌more‌‌common‌‌to‌‌appeal‌‌to‌‌
‘nature’‌‌or‌‌‘biology’‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌“men‌‌make‌‌more‌‌money‌‌and‌‌have‌‌higher-status‌‌jobs,‌‌because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌genetically‌‌more‌‌
ambitious‌‌and‌‌hard-working”‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌“women‌‌more‌‌often‌‌work‌‌part-time‌‌because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌biologically‌‌programmed‌‌for‌‌child-rearing”‌ ‌

De-naturalization‌ ‌

● De-naturalization:‌‌core‌‌task‌‌of‌‌social‌‌sciences‌ ‌
● To‌‌show‌‌that‌‌what‌‌presents‌‌itself‌‌as‌‌natural‌‌in‌‌fact‌‌has‌‌celar‌‌social‌‌(ie.‌‌man-made-)‌‌causes‌ ‌
● Natural‌‌in‌‌double‌‌sense:‌‌ ‌
1. self-evident,‌‌normal,‌‌matter‌‌of‌‌fact‌ ‌
2. Biological,‌‌genetic,‌‌innate‌ ‌
● How?‌‌ ‌
1. History‌:‌‌uncover‌‌the‌‌genealogy‌‌of‌‌our‌‌everyday‌‌practices,‌‌show‌‌what‌‌they‌‌looked‌‌like‌‌in‌‌the‌‌past‌‌
(contrast‌‌in‌‌time)‌‌ ‌
2. Anthropology‌:‌‌compare‌‌‘our’‌‌everyday‌‌practices‌‌with‌‌those‌‌of‌‌other‌‌societies‌‌on‌‌the‌‌globe‌‌(contrast‌‌
in‌‌space)‌ ‌

Denaturalization‌‌in‌‌History‌ ‌ Denaturalization‌‌in‌‌Anthropology‌ ‌

Historicization‌‌is‌‌an‌‌important‌‌tool‌‌of‌‌denaturalization‌ ‌ Anthropologists‌‌do‌‌not‌‌rely‌‌on‌‌historicization,‌‌but‌‌use‌‌
culturalization‌‌as‌‌a‌‌means‌‌of‌‌showing‌‌the‌‌social‌‌roots‌‌of‌‌
By‌‌once‌‌again‌‌revealing‌‌the‌‌(often‌‌repressed)‌‌history‌‌of‌‌ practices‌‌and‌‌beliefs‌ ‌
certain‌‌practices‌‌and‌‌beliefs‌‌it‌‌becomes‌‌possible‌‌to‌‌show‌‌
their‌‌socially‌‌constructed‌‌character‌ ‌

1‌ ‌

, ‌


Getting‌‌outside‌ ‌

● Both‌‌history‌‌and‌‌anthropology‌‌can‌‌claim‌‌a‌‌position‌‌‘outside’‌‌of‌‌their‌‌objects‌‌of‌‌the‌‌study,‌‌both‌‌benefit‌‌from‌‌
distance‌ ‌
● Distance‌‌makes‌‌‘exotic’‌ ‌
● Sociology‌‌studies‌‌things‌‌in‌‌the‌‌‘here‌‌and‌‌now’‌‌(=‌‌historians‌‌of‌‌the‌‌present/anthropologists‌‌of‌‌the‌‌familiar)‌ ‌
● Ok‌‌when‌‌science‌‌studies‌‌the‌‌practices‌‌and‌‌opinions‌‌of‌‌the‌‌‘other’,‌‌less‌‌OK‌‌when‌‌it‌‌studies‌‌our‌‌own‌ ‌


How?‌ ‌

● Sociology:‌‌denaturalization‌‌through‌‌deindividualization‌ ‌
● Compare‌‌different‌‌groups‌‌(income,‌‌level‌‌of‌‌education,‌‌gender,‌‌ethnicity,‌‌status,‌‌etc.)‌‌within‌‌one‌‌and‌‌the‌‌same‌‌
society‌ ‌
● Show‌‌that‌‌the‌‌“unique”,‌‌the‌‌“subjective”,‌‌the‌‌“personal”,‌‌very‌‌often‌‌has‌‌general,‌‌objective‌‌and‌‌impersonal‌‌
causes‌ ‌
● E.g.‌‌the‌‌importance‌‌of‌‌social‌‌class‌‌(later‌‌this‌‌semester)‌ ‌


A‌‌bitter‌‌pill‌‌ ‌

● Runs‌‌counter‌‌to‌‌the‌‌dominant‌‌social‌‌philosophy‌‌of‌‌our‌‌society‌‌=‌‌individualism‌ ‌
● Sociology‌‌provokes‌‌considerable‌‌resistance…‌‌especially‌‌(but‌‌not‌‌exclusively)‌‌among‌‌privileged‌‌social‌‌groups‌ ‌
● ‘Our‌‌object‌‌objects’‌‌-‌‌Pierre‌‌Bourdieu‌‌ ‌


1.1.2.‌‌Difference‌‌sociology‌‌and‌‌exact‌‌sciences‌ ‌

Double‌‌hermeneutic‌ ‌

Single‌‌hermeneutic‌‌ ‌ Double‌‌hermeneutic‌ ‌
Life‌‌sciences:‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌knowing‌‌goes‌‌one‌‌way‌ ‌ Social‌‌sciences:‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌knowing‌‌goes‌‌two‌‌ways‌ ‌

That‌‌what‌‌you‌‌study,‌‌does‌‌not‌‌interact‌‌back‌ ‌ Interaction‌‌with‌‌object‌‌of‌‌study‌‌is‌‌possible‌‌ ‌

Mutual‌‌interpretative‌‌interplay‌‌ ‌

No‌‌clear‌‌dividing‌‌line‌‌between‌‌informed‌‌sociological‌‌
reflection‌‌carried‌‌on‌‌by‌‌lay‌‌actors‌‌and‌‌similar‌‌
endeavours‌‌on‌‌the‌‌part‌‌of‌‌specialists‌ ‌


● Social‌‌sciences‌‌and‌‌sociology‌‌is‌‌the‌‌‘interpretation‌‌of‌‌interpreting‌‌beings’‌ ‌
● Alfred‌‌Schütz:‌‌sociological‌‌theories‌‌are‌‌theories‌‌of‌‌the‌‌‘second-degree’‌ ‌
● Harold‌‌Garfinkel:‌‌sociology‌‌is‌‌an‌‌(account‌‌of‌‌accounts’‌ ‌
● Sociologists‌‌are‌‌not‌‌the‌‌only‌‌ones‌‌producing‌‌‘theories’‌‌about‌‌social‌‌world‌ ‌
● They‌‌complete‌‌with‌‌both‌‌lay‌‌and‌‌professional‌‌( journalists,‌…
‌ )‌ ‌


2‌ ‌

, A‌‌sociological‌‌syllogism‌ ‌

● The‌‌way‌‌that‌‌human‌‌beings‌‌perceive‌‌and‌‌judge‌‌the‌‌world‌‌is‌‌shaped‌‌by‌‌their‌‌position‌‌in‌‌society‌ ‌
● Sociologists‌‌are‌‌human‌‌beings‌‌ ‌
● Hence:‌‌the‌‌way‌‌that‌‌sociologists‌‌perceive‌‌and‌‌judge‌‌ ‌
● But:‌‌how‌‌is‌‌objective‌‌knowledge‌‌possible?‌‌How‌‌can‌‌we‌‌produce‌‌knowledge‌‌claims‌‌that‌‌are‌‌universally‌‌valid?‌‌ ‌

(Un)learning‌ ‌

● In‌‌the‌‌natural‌‌sciences:‌‌learning‌‌is‌‌discovering‌‌qualitatively‌‌‘new’‌‌aspects‌‌of‌‌reality‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌medical‌‌science‌‌student‌‌first‌‌time‌‌see‌‌a‌‌corpse‌→
‌ ‌‌but‌‌we‌‌are‌‌dealing‌‌with‌‌things‌‌we‌‌more‌‌or‌‌less‌‌
already‌‌know‌‌(we‌‌already‌‌have‌‌our‌‌own‌‌ideas‌‌about‌‌it)‌ ‌
● As‌‌sociologists‌‌(and‌‌as‌‌sociology-students):‌‌learning‌‌is‌‌often‌‌un-learning‌ ‌
● Difficulty‌‌=‌‌gaining‌‌a‌‌novel‌‌perspective‌‌on‌‌the‌ ‌thoroughly‌‌familiar‌ ‌
● Especially‌‌in‌‌the‌‌ace‌‌of‌‌existing‌‌‘theories’‌‌and‌‌‘concepts’‌‌about‌‌the‌‌social‌‌world‌‌produced‌‌by‌‌(more‌‌powerful)‌‌
others‌ ‌


‘Common‌‌sense’‌ ‌

● People‌‌don’t‌‌often‌‌have‌‌spontaneous‌‌attitudes‌‌or‌‌strong‌‌feelings‌‌about‌‌‘glucocorticoids’‌‌or‌‌“Higgs’‌‌boson”,‌‌
they‌‌do‌‌have‌‌celar‌‌opinions‌‌about‌‌race,‌‌gender,‌‌the‌‌economy,‌‌education‌‌inequality,‌‌poverty,‌‌etc.‌ ‌
● E.g.‌‌“more‌‌immigration‌‌means‌‌higher‌‌crime‌‌rates.”‌ ‌
● E.g.‌‌“gay‌‌marriage‌‌will‌‌lead‌‌to‌‌the‌‌end‌‌of‌‌the‌‌natural‌‌family.”‌ ‌


The‌‌importance‌‌of‌‌concepts‌‌and‌‌definitions‌ ‌

● Tangled‌‌and‌‌obscured‌‌connotations‌ ‌
● Developing‌‌our‌‌own‌‌language‌‌ ‌
● No‌‌monopoly‌‌on‌‌theory‌‌and‌‌knowledge‌‌of‌‌the‌‌social‌‌world‌ ‌
○ Question:‌‌does‌‌all‌‌of‌‌this‌‌really‌‌matter?‌‌ ‌
○ Answer:‌‌depends‌‌on‌‌your‌‌theoretical‌‌perspective‌ ‌

1.2.‌‌Critique‌ ‌
1.2.1.‌‌Critique‌‌in‌‌western‌‌social‌‌thought‌ ‌
● Immanuel‌‌Kant‌‌-‌“‌ Critique‌‌of‌‌Pure‌‌Reason”‌ ‌
● Karl‌‌Marx‌‌-‌‌“Capital:‌‌A‌‌Critique‌‌of‌‌Political‌‌Economy”‌ ‌


Critique‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Kantian‌‌sense‌ ‌

● The‌‌“Critique‌‌of‌‌Pure‌‌Reason”‌‌is‌‌an‌‌inquiry‌‌into‌‌the‌‌basic‌‌categories‌‌that‌‌enable‌‌human‌‌consciousness‌ ‌
● Consciousness‌‌is‌‌not‌‌passive‌‌reception,‌‌but‌‌actively‌‌shapes‌‌the‌‌world‌‌around‌‌it‌ ‌
● Our‌‌consciousness‌‌is‌‌not‌‌shaped‌‌by‌‌the‌‌world‌‌of‌‌objects,‌‌our‌‌consciousness‌‌shapes‌‌the‌‌world‌‌of‌‌objects‌‌(‌‌=‌‌
‘Copernican‌‌Revolution’)‌ ‌
● For‌‌Kant:‌‌are‌‌“a‌‌priori”‌‌=‌‌innate,‌‌universal‌ ‌
● Hence:‌‌analysis‌‌must‌‌turn‌‌“inwards”,‌‌aim‌‌to‌‌clarify‌‌how‌‌the‌‌actor‌‌experiences‌‌her‌‌world‌‌ ‌


3‌ ‌