No one should confuse this with the notion that Chomsky dislikes Sociology. I asked him myself: Question regarding sociologists -- you've been critical of an excess of theory -- folks like Karl Popper, or Foucault, or Zizek, or whatever else. It extends even to the celebrated academic John Rawls, who had delineated a much celebrated "theory" of a just society. The "field" of sociology, you've said, has been bound up by excess theorizing - similarly to postmodernist intellectuals in this way. On the other hand, the name Edward Said pops into my head, in regards to an intellectual who is associated with postmodernism, but as well, activity in the life of dissent. I am wondering if there are sociologists who, in your mind, have been made the exception to this critique, and who exemplify, not just a competence of intellect but also a decision toward engagement? I am thinking of the possibility of "radical sociology" as I continue on my degree....But the field seems to be tied up with a lot of gunk - data and etc. etc.. But there must be some figure who stands out here in the modern day, who brings substance and inspiration... Chomsky: I have no objections to theory. Just empty talk about “theories.” Rawls and Popper had serious theories. Zizek as far as I can see doesn’t. With Foucault there seem to be rudiments here and there. Said (a personal friend) didn’t dabble in PoMo “theories,” to my knowledge. There are plenty of great radical sociologists. Vivek Chibber to name one.
Thanks for posting this, it helped a lot. I can't lie - while I personally think I understand Chomsky's point here (and I do agree with it), I feel like I can't blame anybody for coming away with the impression that Chomsky just has a lower opinion of the intellectual rigor present in the social sciences.
@@talrefae97 Yeah, it matters. The context for how this should be understood is how Chomsky has seen the potential of social sciences degraded by post-modernist movements, which make an idol out of theory. To contrast we might think of Marx, or one of Chomsky's influences, Peter Kropotkin, or his close friend Howard Zinn, as people whose lives were filled with action and leading by example -- not merely posturing or talk which never lead anywhere except back to oneself. A good understanding of Chomsky's own conviction is in a beautifully written article....by Fred Branfman. "When Chomsky Wept." Chomsky's on a mission....this is something that puts his heart in a different place than the world of intellect. And perhaps it is why he can see so clearly that men of similar ability to him have gone on, either abusing their positions in the service of power, or otherwise forming cults around themselves.
@@stephenwallace8782 That was a genuinely lovely article. Thanks for sharing it. I feel like Chomsky is actually making a more fundamental point about the complexity of the respective sciences. That is how I'm understanding it, anyway. I think that the natural sciences typically deal with systems that are much, much simpler than those studied in the social sciences. (Try to compare a cell with an economy.) Because of this, the natural sciences lend themselves to much more predictive/rigorous/general theories. This is even true *within* the disciplines of the natural sciences - the physicist's theory of the atom is much more precise than the biologist's theory of ecosystems because electrons are just so much simpler, and thus can be studied with more depth. Though we can make progress with cells and groups of cells, we lose predictive power very quickly as complexity rises. So I think Chomsky's point is that, for any rigorous definition of theory, we're just hopeless in the social sciences. Even if a really successful theory of the social sciences exists, we would never even begin to comprehend it. Somebody else in this thread mentioned that is coming down to the semantics of the word 'theory'. I agree. We shouldn't be using the same word for both the natural and social sciences. Instead, I think of the contributions of Marx and other 'theorists' as useful frameworks to think about the world. They give us a language and set of metaphors which describe what is going on in the world. So, under this interpretation, I don't think of theories as true and false - just useful and not useful. (You could have a similar kind of 'pragmatist'-ish outlook to the theories of the natural sciences. I don't, but I think its a good way of thinking about it sometimes. Consider the statistics aphorism: "all models are wrong, but some are useful.")
@@talrefae97 This is a wonderful response here. It's late and I want to continue this. I spend a lot of time wondering how sociology could be a little bit more like the sciences...I think of it as something which will always have this tinge of romantic qualities to it -- for better or worse -- because what a good sociologist is doing, in my humble opinion, is spending time envisioning the world as it could be (dystopian, utopian), and measuring the distance between a certain potential -- technological, ethical etc -- and a present event or series of events. I also think that the social sciences should be understood as optimally practiced in a world which is much more democratic than we currently live in, so there's a pedagogical challenge that I think is mostly unnoticed, and under-diagnosed. The beauty, of course, is that on the one hand, sociology requires we realize this more-democratic possibility, and on the other hand, its present task is to contribute to its coming into being. That's all I have for now, it's super late here. Good to exchange thoughts with you.
@@stephenwallace8782 I'm really not familiar with a lot of the social sciences, except for some casual readings I do in my spare time. I liked your description of defining some ideal (good or bad) and then measuring how far we are from it. If you're interested in a more scientific/rigorous approach to certain aspects of the social sciences, particularly with the idea of democracy, maybe you'll enjoy listening to this podcast on "Democracy as a Problem-Solving Mechanism" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CDwVZgywk-M.html
There's only one way to define 'theory' as Chomsky regards it. The actual scientific definition, not the gibberish moon made of cheese definition in the social sciences.
@@michaelwright8896 The scientific method is the authority, Chomsky is just reaffirming it. You either believe in empirical evidence or you believe in ideological woo woo. Your choice really.
Maybe you can be more constructive and elaborate, or give examples? I know of much 'theoretical' work that is commonly called theory, but it seems fundamentally different in nature than what is called theory in the sciences.
@@sullivansongz Chomsky would argue back that the worst criminals in history have been those in the ruling elite and the ones who were brought up in privilege the rest of us could only dream about.
The applause at 0:30 is just scientific snobbery. The social sciences are not--and can never be--physical sciences. Their objects of study are fundamentally abstract. This doesn't make them less legitimate--as long as their methods are equally rigorous. There's a prevalent bias against the social sciences; it's now fashionable to make quips like that. The truth is that there is a lot of excellent work being done, with certain exceptions, of course. And not all disciplines (and sub-disciplines) are equal offenders. Chomsky is probably my favorite modern thinker, but I think he takes a cheap-shot here. (And I don't find his views on 'theories' any good; of course there are theories in social science. Theories *are* descriptive by nature.)
What Chomsky is objecting to is that an umbrella term is applied to a branch that is not actually a branch, but is something that consists of a host of disciplines that already covers and give explanations from different angles from which insight is gained. In the same way you don't explain the magnetic force from the vantage point of the phenomenon, but in stead talk about the constituents of certain molecules.
they are abstract, and not rigorously controlled like physics. But yeah... sociology does have roots in Mathematics and competitive dynamics, learning algorithms. catastrophe theory. etc. I rarely see it applied in anything meaningful, let alone public policy
He didn't say that Social studies are irrelevant and that it's not worth understanding it. Actually he's quite explicit about it at 0:56 of this video: theory and appeal to understanding are separate things. He's only saying that it's silly to call these sorts of fields "theory" or "sciences". I guess that in the end of the day, it's just a matter of definition anyway... Though I would agree with him: "theory" and "sciences", in my view, ought to remain for fields which claim to develop rational conclusions about the natural world, and not merely rely on observations and make common sense analysis on them (which, again, doesn't have to be called "theories" to be interesting and relevant).
But some of them are not equally rigorous, not even close. So the rigor of psychology which I spent a couple years studying is an absolute total joke. Anthropology has it's own problems, but is overall much better.
Social scientists have run amok. They hold absolutely no credibility on the mirror basis of what they presents as their thought let alone their consensus as a discipline. That's because it's not based off of rigorous scientific methods like the hard Sciences. Theories as used by hard Sciences mean a completely different thing as they are used in the social sciences. They are stripped of what makes a theory a theory, that is an accumulation of falsifiable propositions that lead to conclusions.
I think that Chomsky is mainly referring to the fact that the whole field is based on mere observations, without real success in drawing rational conclusions. Chomsky criticizes (rightly I think) these sorts of behaviorist so-called theories. This was one of his greatest achievements in his own field (linguistics), in which he refuted, quite brilliantly, the behaviorist takes on language, which dominated the field during the first half of the 20th century. But as he says, this doesn't mean that the field of social studies is not interesting. Only that we cannot, at least yet, really talk about "theories" and "science" in these fields.
it's considered a soft science, where studies can only be statistical, or anecdotal, not a controlled experiment. It's psychology of individuals.. IN groups. Without that rigor, you're left with only people trying to interpret it, and only meta-analyses to look at.
OntheFront anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, political science-the ones that claim to be a science. (You could say history, philosophy too but they generally don’t pretend to be sciences (not always)). He’s just saying these are qualitatively different than, say, physics, which is a “science” with real “theories.” It’s a technical term. In everyday speech it’s used all the time. But that’s a metaphor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science It's a scientific realm of inquiry that is heavily politicised since many decades. Because of this, and as it stands, Chomsky deems it unworthy.
"Social sciences are intellectually thin" smh I sense foundational ignorance in this lecture. To have such an argument, we must first ask ourselves "what is a theory?"
I am pretty sure Chomsky won't put linguistics under social sciences, his generative grammar is clearly a formal science and has gone on record saying that the entire discipline should focus on questions raised by generative grammar.
BRAVO! Let's mark this comment as the official end of the use of "conspiracy theory" perhaps, with the sole exception of Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies.
