It’s Time for a Liberty-Loving Sociology

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | September 18, 2024 | Fabio Rojas

[karpov]

In the sociological imagination, capitalism is now regarded as a sin standing next to sexism and racism. Routinely, sociologists call for their colleagues and students to oppose capitalism and use their classrooms as places where people can understand the repressive nature of “neoliberalism.”

In fact, a former president of the American Sociological Association, Michael Burawoy, argued in his presidential address that one of the main purposes of sociology is to stand in opposition to capitalism. He warned the ASA that “unfettered capitalism fuels market tyrannies and untold inequities on a global scale.” Later in the same remarks, Professor Burawoy argued for an activist sociology, a public sociology. He said that in the intellectual sphere, economists stand for the expansion of markets in social life. In contrast, “sociology—and in particular its public face—defends the interests of humanity.”

Burawoy was not an isolated voice in the discipline of sociology who thought that capitalism is the enemy. Many leading figures openly embrace anti-capitalism or see Marxist theory as an inspiration for their work.

Patricia Hill Collins is one of the primary architects of intersectional social theory and also a former president of the American Sociological Association. Within academic sociology, she is known for coining the phrase “matrix of domination,” which refers to the ways that different types of social statuses, such as race and gender, combine to define inequality. In her seminal text, Black Feminist Thought, Collins writes: “Feminism advocates women’s emancipation and empowerment, [while] Marxist social thought aims for a more equitable society.”

[Telepathic Intruder]

"Marxist social thought aims for a more equitable society".

At the expense of individual freedom and dictatorship. They never give you the big picture of what Marxism is all about.

[rlmorel]

I took a Sociology course in my sophomore year in college, after I spent four years in the Navy.

I was already a conservative, and had been since my pre-teen days when I was watching the Nixon-Humphrey race at the age of 12. I had been all the way. around the world before I joined the Navy, and saw more of it when I joined.

My point is, looking back I feel I was less of an impressionable brain full of mush than many of my classmates may have been.

But I was was very attracted to the planning and order that Sociology seemed to offer. I found it fascinating and interesting, and it appealed to my innate admiration for an orderly implementation of a city plan. They had us read a book for the course called “Walden Two” by B.F. Skinner, and by the end of the book, some of the characters saw the endeavor for what it was and walked out of the story.

As did I. I re-read its again a few yers ago, and wondered why it had taken me so far into the book to see Sociology for what it was-a tyrannical Leftist construct. Social Engineering, and Leftists just love that.

The professor was a young guy and I kind of liked him, but he became extremely despondent and depressed when the class refused to participate.

Someone told me that, as part of a ruse to get the class involved, he came into class wearing skin-tight leather with two large dobermans on chains. I don’t know if it was true, but the person told it to me in a way that made me think it was. Very matter of factly.

One day, he came in and sat down at his desk, didn’t say anything and just sat there and looked at us without talking. It was very weird and awkward, and after about 20 minutes, he began to talk about how frustrated he was that we wouldn’t participate.

After class, I went up to talk to him and he was so discouraged and dejected I said to him “Have you ever thought about doing something else for a living?”