[S]ociologists have an obligation to challenge speciesism as part of a larger system of oppression.Some sentences from the conclusion of the paper:
Poverty, environmental degradation, homelessness, war, and the threat of terrorism are all high on the social agenda. Some would argue that they are more pressing than the well-being of animals. The flaw in this argument is that all problems are connected, and the segmenting of issues is both illogical and morally questionable. For example, the moral status of animals as property justifies institutionalized cruelty on the basis that we humans can use them as we see fit. The ideology of superiority, coupled with “might makes right,” also underpins sexism, racism, and homophobia.While various other things might be said, I will admit to having reached a point of confusion regarding exactly what qualitative sociology is.
(Granted, I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly "analytic sociology" is supposed to be, and I'm currently floundering while trying to write an essay for an edited volume on that.)
8 comments:
And me, I was under the impression that the qualitative-quantitave divide was methodological, not ideological. Or, well, at least that it ought to be. :-/
Me too. I don't really get why the example says anything about qualitative sociology. What you're irritated with is the subject matter, not the method, right?
There isn't an actual research method; it's a non-empirical paper. The reason I connect it to qualitative sociology is that it was published in Qualitative Sociology Review.
Ah. I skimmed over which journal it was published in.
There is nothing patently wrong about looking at the role of animals in social relations.
We slaughter them, eat them, love them, hunt them, or turn them into household companions.
In domestic violence research, my partner told me stories of how men (mostly) would murder, torture, abuse the pets of the women they were also abusing. So there is something sociological to that, I would say.
According to the Journal's webpage, they embrace the interpretive frame of social science. While there is a strong interpretive tradition in sociology (e.g., Peter Berger), I believe this term is frequently invoked to deflect attention from methodological flaws. (Not that I've read this article, or am suggesting this is the case here without reading the article).
I also noticed that the editorial mission of the journal includes non-empirical (theoretical or "think piece") work.
Qualitative Sociology Review publishes empirical, theoretical and methodological articles applicable to all fields and specializations within sociology. Every submitted paper is blind reviewed and quality-controlled by two reviewers. The Editorial Staff and Consulting Editors strive to operate at a high level of scientific quality.
I suppose it's an unsettled question if non-empirical theoretical essays should qualify as qualitative. My vote would be to reserve this term for actual empirical research that uses non-statistical strategies. But, what do I know?
tom,
the issue is not that animals are intrinsically un-sociological but that in practice, animal sociology is usually executed poorly which seems to be the case with the excerpted piece which, whatever its (debatable) merits as ethics, doesn't add much value to understanding social structure.
I think I know what analytic sociology is. The "analytic" part applies not to providing empirical support but rather to the structure of the argument. Look at Peter Hedström's work...
I don't get your strong desire to make animals and society folks your whipping boys. Is it the topic or the way in which the work is done? Yes, I get that you didn't like this article. But I suspect I could point to an article in just about any journal (every time it comes out) that, when excepted, would make sociologists look, well, foolish...
Post a Comment