the point of social theory

how does society function?
how do humans interact within certain overarching environments?
what are norms and why do they compel?
why education? why freedom? why Catholicism?
can there be humans with no society?
...does society function?

social theory is [the remarkably serendipitous attempt] to describe, in a language [just the layman term] which is [usually only somewhat barely] internally rational [as opposed to universally rational, or internally irrational, or plain utter gibberish], the causes [as temporarily determined by the philosophical study of causality], or the processes [i.e. chains of causes and effects] which then result in particular social facts [as observed by the theorist to be observed/observable by everyone else, no less].

as already observable, each word [used so laconically] above could be supported by its own literature of formal theory. in other words, for a good sociologist [in the sense that s/he actually understands others hermeneu-... i mean, properly] to begin engaging any text, s/he must be rather linguistically talented [terminologically ill, verbosely endowed, suffer lexophilia to a less-than-annoying degree].

in themselves, social theories are generally composed, through herculean effort, to remain "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable". unfortunately [often also purposefully, for humanity's sake, or neurotically], these "ideals" are never standardised [are un-standardizable, indefinite, or simply piss too many people off with endless debate] such that all other serious sociologists [self-professed, self-qualified, or just selfish] would be compelled to critique it to bits. this does not exonerate the failure of the effort, no matter how herculean.

few social theories are truly compatible with one another - their genesis usually being "in response" to some other assumed-defective theory. occasionally, like-minded theorists may put aside their bickering and actually form a "school of thought" to rally behind and support a favourite theory. inconsequentially, said favourite theory does not thus become "canon" in sociology [or most social sciences], but instead, it simply becomes more widely read, greatly expanded ad nauseum, and create its own school of denigrates.

do theories become better? yes they do - to those who think they do. [no they don't - to everyone else.]

do theories advance our understanding of society? in an oblique way, but ultimately someone has to shirk off the old herculean efforts and actually begin formulating a "methodology" [kind of has its own arena of theory, really] to investigate actual social reality [systematically, formally, in some manner satisfying to the editors of would-be journals] before the theory can produce something fulfilling said purpose to non-sociologists. [certain theorists appear completely vindicated through efforts to simply theorise for theorising's sake - sola theoriae.]

where does that leave us - students of social theory? well, what doesn't kill us can only make us stronger. i just hope that those among us who may work on theory in future do something truly "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable" with their publications. [my powers of hoping must be phenomenal, however, judging by the social facts available to me in the form of sociology journals. it is akin to madness: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.]

social theory isn't always intellectual masturbation. [but it almost seems like it.] even then, you don't always need to reach orgasm. [but someone almost always proves relentless in such pursuits.] and ultimately, life moves on. [to other so-called pursuits of less "folly" - as defined by who again?]

existential fatalism! what a way to approach this 15-week module! no no, gerg the pseudo-theory-hater would not appreciate your patronising applause. he would like a good grade instead. the hypocrite.