Review: 'The Sacred Project of American Sociology' | National Catholic Reporter

Review: 'The Sacred Project of American Sociology' | National Catholic Reporter This is going to be a fun few days commenting on the review.  My plan is to consolidate this reaction into one commentary in my Examiner column, but it now appears that I have enough for a new piece each day.



Let us begin by saying that sociology is dynamic and began as a justification for African slavery.  We have come a long way baby!  I doubt that many sociologists would listen to the current description of what they are about and react like the committed practitioner to BDSM, who would say, "Yes, so when are you getting to the good parts?" after you list your view of his or her sins. If the goal of either this commentary or the book was to burst someone's consciousness of innocence, I would advise not expecting much.



That the discipline has both individualist and egalitarian streaks shocks no one.  That anyone would expect that this would shock the moral consciousness of those committed to the epistemology of the Catholic hierarchy and its defenders is not really news.  That universe is not all Catholics - many of whom believe Christ to be much more humanistic than his bishops are willing to admit (and I suspect that even some of his priests agree with the sociological mindset).



Do all sociologists have an agenda aside from understanding?  Of course, although Aaron Wildavsky, who shared in the popularization of the Cultural Theory - also known as Grid/Group Theory delivered a series of lectures during his time at The American University called The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism, which later became a book.  I was there for these lectures.  He and I had a running debate on whether his Fatalist way of life might better be called Martyrs (he said Egalitarians would think so, but then I mentioned the Maccabees and he got it).  That cell in the theory is called by others as Despotism, which also fits the typology which also includes Hierarchy, Egalitarianism and Libertarianism/Individualism on two dimensions, group identification and grid or prescription (both too technical).  A better term would be one Smith uses, Sacredness.  Egalitarians and LIbertarians have low sacredness while Despotism and Hierarchy have high Sacredness, where sacredness is not virtue, but the degree to which taboos exist in the culture.



Interestingly, in our doctoral class (in political science and sociology), the feminist members were the least friendly to the theory - and oddly so were the committed Republicans.  It seems that these people believed that individualism and hierarchy should be on the same row or column rather than on an axis going from origin to infinity in both directions - these were the male ways of life, while Despotism and Egalitarian were more feminine. I suspect many of their colleagues would agree, although Mary and Aaron would not be among them - using gender robs the theory of estimating degree, because with exceptions for the transgendered or intersexed, male and female are  mostly dichotomous.



Going back to the Catholic Hierarchy, my guess is that , while they claim hierarchy, some of the orders would claim egalitarianism (especially the Jesuits, including its foremost member), while some bishops could be pegged as Despots rather easily and would have no more compunction about it than our committed perverts would to a listing of their traits or sins.