Ugly Doll Invitations For Parties

About the usefulness of sociology

few days ago, reading the blog Shovel I found a letter on the usefulness of sociology (the link in the post title in any case). The text will say many things that seem to me essentially correct about what is being done in sociology. For example: 'In other words, many sociologists are more interested in the founding reformist political action programs (eg, Alain Touraine, Norbert Lechner, Thomas Moulian among others) research programs. " And to suggest that this is just fine, but things are so much better policy than sociology.

But there's something wrong I think the text

We seem to be in a time of indifference, judging by the reduced weight having sociology in public discussion. Beyond the book of Thomas Moulian has been a best-seller, that Villegas has podium in all the mass media or public opinion studies that are published everywhere, still think that discipline is very influential, the more academic research takes little account and that, After all, no one understands very well what we are, not even us. That is, despite the fact that Chile has experienced a series of economic, social, cultural and political, the sociological language (tradition - modernity, community - society functional differentiation, etc.) Does not appear much in public discussion.

Now, why the utility of sociology is measured around how to influence public discussion? It is true that this place would probably take more than we would in fact you busy for a while, and that the issue that economists now occupy it be a source of dislike for more than one. But actually I think sociology has been influenced outside the scope of public discussion (I think there is more of a public policy program that was designed by sociologists in recent years, and I know some interventions across diverse markets also have that provenance) .

In more than one way, trying to leave the 'ideological discourse' and change to a profession-work (say, not just the books that changed Tironi by consultancy), had this effect: A sociology whose utility operates in secret of society, rather than in the public square. It is possibly a bad way to be 'useful' and in particular can be very bad for sociology. In fact, I have more capacity to provide maps to the public square to develop public policies into reality. But it remains a way of being 'useful'.

Although I'm probably closer to the sense of Jean Bottero, a specialist in the ancient Middle East, which once published an article about his discipline, 'in defense of a useless science', based precisely on its usefulness. On the other hand, I have always felt comfortable with the pure desire to know more about the social world actually.