This text also comes from the intention of re-drafting and reorganization of ancient texts. In this case, a series of comments on analysis carried out during the '90s on Chilean society. At the review, I noticed an interesting topic in the development of sociology in Chile was that while during the '90s had developed a diagnostic of the society in the years '00-and make no just keep using the diagnosis above. So I thought those comments were recovered, and that making a distinction between the founders and followers might well make a critique of sociological endeavor over the past decades.
An opinion was critical because remains the same: The Chilean sociology has failed in the past 20 years to make its most basic task, which is to diagnose what is happening in Chile, and ended up using a limited diagnosis was not much that we allowed to say.
There are two essential features of sociology in the past 20 years: It uses a common diagnosis that is what happened in society, that we become a market society. This is said with rhetoric, values \u200b\u200band languages \u200b\u200bvery different but basically that's what arises. And that is a common method to show that change-the impressionistic essay, and in particular of trials that did not argue too much. Both features are related. The assay makes use of the not discuss the themes, and stay-at last what appears obvious: the importance of the market and consumption. When we were only in the obvious, also once said obvious there was more to say. And then over the company after the 90 sociology has had nothing new to ask. Even discuss, seriously, whether or not there had been fundamental changes.
Why is it important that sociology in Chile in general do not argue and defend their positions? In the final analysis, this may seem a mere formality without much relevance in the central, that is content. Who cares if you do not argue that pose is so interesting, right?
Because no argument with what all we have is with names. The only reason to take into account what they are suggesting is simply that they say so. No arguments are reduced to the world than it looks, what one would sounds. In a world with no arguments, the statements seem correct or interesting only for the prestige of the author. Do not deny it's a comfortable intellectual world. without argument, we simply run the equivalent of an alleged conversation in coffee depth. And the text, finally, have the same gaps in these conversations: brilliantly simple and evocative phrases and intelligent. But nothing of importance behind the facade. Like any conversation of coffee, used to spend an afternoon and to pretend that one is not a brute, but as a contribution to the knowledge society is not much to serve. The strange thing is the claim that such treatises printed deserved
To write the texts that we discussed is requires some intelligence and think a few evenings. There is a really difficult task. However, the task of arguing if it is difficult. It's something that takes work and dedication. Alcabes Ultimately, argue it is repeated several times the same statement. Arguing the position is not to illustrate with an example argument does not argue that one's position is clear. To argue is to tread: connecting phrases. To be people who, presumably, work with ideas no longer something strange to skip the part that actually is working with ideas.
The central problem is that one consequence of this lack of argument, the actual research effort is that we are reduced to the obvious and common sense, the positions taken are not very interesting. The vision of Chilean society behind Cousiño theological disquisitions, and Valenzuela-for example, his discussion of the exodus, "the rhetoric of and the equivalent Moulian comments Tironi desktop is quite simple: Chile has become a society dominated by the market. Virtually all of our authors share the idea that Chile has become a society dominated by politics to one focused on the market. Much of our activities and relationships is mediated by the market, and consumption-particularly its increased consumption, has become one of the core activities of our society.
But not really find out, then not only say what seems obvious, but also just say what seems obvious that: not even researched, well, that was exactly "a market society." Argue that there are more goods in a society, more cars, more washing machines does not tell us much about the experience and practices of living in a market society, which really means to people. Asking people to borrow not allow us to understand much more if we do not know how debt is inserted in the lives of individuals, how it affects budgetary practices. This may seem trifles, but the issue is that when you look closely they show important elements that one might not have thought when he stays in the overall look and obvious . Even if we accept the general diagnosis, and accept that what happened was the establishment of a market society, we do not know what that diagnosis unless we go beyond what can be observed in general.
Ultimately, the weaknesses of sociological discourse is based on the role played. In the final analysis, sociology, in practice, is only the transposition somewhat more complex and affected in that but just simple ideas, of political discourse. Political consensus is transformed into consensus on diagnosis, and the points on which policy is discussed in turn into the points which are discussed in sociology (state and market in the end.)
In the rush to have some general understanding about the Chile of '90, sociology forgot to do their job. A stage which, by admission of the consensus standard represents major changes in society, should be an especially interesting to a sociologist. But instead of making a serious and thorough work, we stayed in what is easier: in the trial and the metaphor. And so we left the job because he just had to say
Not everyone has the opportunity to analyze a transformation as it develops. In this regard, the Chilean sociologists in recent decades failed in the basic task that had to do, to understand and study society in a process of change.
0 comments:
Post a Comment