The Classical Sociologists and Values and Value Freedom and Commitment and Social/Sociological problems Flashcards
positivists tended to argue their own values were irrelevant to research. Why?
science is concerned with matters or fact not value so sociologists should remain morally neutral since their job is to establish the truth of peoples behaviour not praise or condemn it
what do critics argue about the fact positivists argue their own values are irrelevant ?
they argue this was to try to make sociology respectable, science had high prestige so mimicking its ways would raise the subjects status
what did Goulder argue sociologists had become by the 1950’s?
‘spiritless technitions’
earlier in the century they had been critical and often challenging to authority but by the 1950’s were no longer problem makers but problem takers who hired themselves out to organisations.
by leaving their own values behind they were making a ‘gentleman’s promise’ that they wouldn’t criticise pay masters, they simply became hired hands and saw own values irrelevant to their work - this is the view Weber criticised
what did Comte and Durkheim believe was sociology’s job?
to discover the truth about how society works so that with this knowledge social problems could be solved
they believed the creation of a better society was not about a matter of subjective values about what was best. by discovering the truth about what is best for society sociologists could objectively say what was best
Why was there a debate about whether or not marx was a positivist?
he saw himself as a scientist and believed historical analysis could reveal the line of development of human society.
role of sociology was to reveal this. marx took for granted the value of communist society and argues his scientific approach will show us how to reach it
how was Marx similar to Comte and Durkheim?
he saw science as helping to deliver the good to society
Marx Durkheim and Comte tended not to see the facts revealed by science as any different to values because….
they believe science told us what these should be
Who makes the distinction between value judgements and facts and argues we cannot derive one from the other, what example does he use?
Weber
e.g. research may establish divorcees are more likely to commit suicide but this does not logically demonstrate the truth of the value judgment that we should make divorce harder to maintain, nothing about the fact logically compels us to accept the value, we might argue we should make it harder to marry
explain why Weber believed values had an essential role in research
- to choose what to study we go by what we consider important
- must be objective and unbiased when collecting facts and testing hypotheses so values must stay out of this process since the hypothesis must stand or fail solely on whether or not it fits the observed facts
- choice of theoretical framework influenced by values so we must be explicit about them - spelling them out so that other can see if unconscious bias is in the sociologists interpretation of the data
- findings can affect people’s lives but sociologists sometimes ignore the uses to which their work is put arguing that their job is merely to conduct objective research and it is for the politicians to decide what use to make of the findings, Weber rejects this saying sociologists are also citizens and should not judge moral/ political issues that work raises. they must take moral responsibility for harm their research may do e.g. Einsteins studies helped make the atomic bomb possible but he voiced his opposition against nuclear weapons
What does Myrdal argue for?
committed sociology where sociologists spell out values and openly take sides
who argues it is neither possible nor desirable to keep values out of research since either sociologists own values or paymaster’s are bound to be reflected in their work and without values to guide research they are merely putting their services at the disposal of the highest bidder.
Gouldner
who argues that values are always present in sociology but traditonally sociologists have taken sides with the powerful. he argues that instead of seeing things from the perspective of overdogs we need to take sides of the underdogs, why?
Becker
because less is known about them so there story needs to be told to redress the balance. by empathising we show the hidden rationality of their behaviour
who notes that to describe the situation of a mental patient we must be biased in favour of them?
Goffman
how does Gouldner criticise Becker’s idea that we need to side with the underdogs?
he has a romanticised approach to disadvantaged groups and accuses him of only being interested in the misunderstood and negatively labelled groups that interactionists tend to focus on
give an example of a funding organisation that prevented publication where findings were uncceptable
Black report into class inequalities in health where the conservative government organised its release on a bank holiday in hope of reducing publicity since findings were contrary to their views
