Saturday, February 1, 2014

Being free, thinking free, theorising free

Is sociology an inherently conservative discipline? Nisbet argues how its very inception is flavoured by the nostalgia for community and sacredity. Ranciere's book i am reading indicates that the new sociology emerges in France after the setbacks faced by the left. In this backdrop, argues Ranciere, does Bourdieu's work emerge - presenting to us a cynical explanation of inequality, leaving us almost trapped in its very existence. Of course, both these kinds of conservatisms are quite different, but perhaps share a common spirit.
I wonder (and this may appear cynical too, but i hope does not remain so) whether most grand theories and perspectives in the discipline are marked by a kind of conservatism. Rather, i think this word is insufficient, even misleading. I want to indicate a seeking of comfort in theories, categories that give us as intellectuals a means to explain the world around us. It makes us believe that we have access to a more exalted, a more secret understanding of the world. In this sense, is sociology, psychologically wanting? Is it driven less often by the higher emotions of wonder, humility and openness and more often by judgement and a missionary zeal? What do we know after all about non-sociological ways of explaining the world? What place can we give them? Are we not often in the business of indoctrination? What for instance does a term like 'patriarchy' do for us? Have we perhaps got stuck with the category, and not moved further on the paths of inquiry? Have we shaped our world on the basis of the very categories we formulated to explain it?
The attempt to explain the word around us, is a profound need for us. Most of our knowledges, our sciences, natural or social are attempts to do so. While, they could perhaps be empowering, they seem to be double edged. You never know when they begin to offer comforts, illusions. Taking us away from the real questions, leaving us fighting with misleading shadows...

No comments: