Well, I happen to specialise in the sociology of Northern Ireland, and I can tell you with certainty that those working in that area spent a great deal of time dispensing with theories that tend to depict two homogeneous monolithic groups, the catholics and the protestants etc. The problem with approaches like that is that they tend to be too simplistic to have any explanatory value beyond conventional wisdom. Life just isn't that simple.Therumancer said:I have to question that because sociology by it's definition is to define entire groups of people and then predict trends by doings so. Individual variation being mild compared to what groups of people have in common. It is by definition the science of creating and exploiting stereotypes.PromethianSpark said:Having a degree in sociology, I feel I must come to the rescue of the discipline and tell you all frankly, that it can not be, and should not ever be used, to support stereotyping.Therumancer said:What's more a people cannot be judged by individuals within it, but by the people as a whole. A person (single) is fine, but a people, when they all get together and are taken as a whole, is something entirely different. This is the root of sociology, which is really the only way of dealing with or understanding things on a national or cultural level. Liberals, the peace at any price movement, and humanitarians like to try and focus on individuals and put a human face on problems, but that is ultimately counter productive in the large sense because what a person is like when approached in relative isolation as an individual, and what they are like when immersed with others of their own kind is entirely different. As much as people hate sociology in these arguments, it's the real deal and is exploited constantly by advertisers and similar sorts every day, and to great effect.
Now granted, you might not like the term "stereotype" due to it's negative connotations, but that is exactly what it is no matter how much you might want to talk around it. Both sociologists and psychologists wind up being hated, or at least disliked, because they take the magic out of being human, being able to predict, define, and alter human behavior, showing we're not quite as special or individual as we want to believe. You see this exploited every day.
As a result I have to question whether you have a degree in sociology or are trying to shoot me down for the sake of doing so, as you would be the first sociologist I've ever met (and I've met quite a few, as well as studied in when I was taking Criminal Justice, albeit with a fairly focused bent by it's nature) who has pretty much tried to dispute the very definition and purpose of the entire science.
Given that I've seen it clearly demonstrated to predict, define, and deal with criminal behaviors as well as explained in detail why someone going into Forensics like I was planning on doing should know this, how it works with corrections, and of course the philosophical arguments about morality vs. reality in terms of things like using sociology as a justification for profiling (ie in the USA morality outweights common sense, and thus we set policies based on potential exceptions rather than by the rule and letting the exceptions work themselves out via associated processes. In the process creating problems whereby we waste tons of money, time, and resources harassing everyone getting on a plane, rather than the groups which are known to present a security risk, in order to make a moral point about being fair).
But by all means, as an expert tell me how you define sociology, and why you think that it cannot be used here, but it can be exploited by advertisers to predict and exploit consumer behavior.
Unless of course what your trying to say is that it shouldn't be used, not that it can't be, and you flubbed in adding that.
As for the question of what sociology is, this is not an easy thing to answer, considering that sociologist often ask themselves the same thing. It doesn't help that their are different answers. There is a divide within the discipline which is in many ways centred around the issue of whether sociology is actually a science. Sure there are the 'structuralists' (for want of a better word) who believe that it is, and that the scientific method is applicable to society or culture, and there are the humanists who don't. Structuralist however, can rarely tell you anything that you don't already know, and tend to make generalisations. They often yield in the end to the more nuanced pictures of how things work which emerge from the more humanistic sociologists.
In general, I would say that sociology is more concerned with understanding society/culture, than it is in ascertaining any rigid laws like science. It has very little predictive value in the end, and can not be used to model the future of our society. In the end, it tends to be more of a political project, as it is a vehicle for criticizing society, and attempting to influence it. In that sense, rejecting stereotypes is very much the business of sociology.
Now it should be noted, that I have rather crudely simplified and misrepresented the divide in sociology, but this is due to being lazy. As with anything it is complicated. Suffice to say, it is not just a matter of structuralist and humanists, but you get the idea.