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.
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Monday, March 09, 2009
Sunday, August 10, 2008
how to communicate #1 - accusation
when you want to convince someone else that his POV is erroneous, it may be wise to avoid using accusations. why?
1.
when a person is accused of something - anything - the accused usually becomes defensive immediately. a person who is defensive is also usually closed off to others' POV, since he is more concerned with defending his own POV. this means that a defensive person is almost impossible to convince - he is only convinced of his own convictions. in fact, putting a person on defense may have the opposite effect: he becomes more convicted in his original beliefs.
2.
accusations tend to suggest some form of moral authority. this may instantly nudge the recipient of your accusation to counter-accuse you of something in relation to your statement. assuming nobody is perfect, this may degenerate into a battle of accusations, whereby both parties simply turtle into their POVs and become hopelessly entrenched in their respective defensive positions. hardly anything worthwhile may be communicated in this case!
3.
the accuser tends to exude an aura of arrogance rather than humility. a humble person would not accuse - she would tend to "question gently" or "make an inquiry", lest she herself be proven wrong and fall flat in the face. yes, when you feel someone else is wrong about something, that does not mean you are correct! pointing out an error requires patience and humility, rather than rash smugness. if the accused perceives you to be arrogant, then your cause in pointing out a possible mistake is immediately lost.
4.
the above three points also tend to lead the accused towards an emotional response. while being passionate about your beliefs is not a bad thing, being passionate about an erroneous belief tends to be rather bad. so since you are already presuming that person to be wrong, the better strategy should be to avoid touching off emotions and focus on logic and facts. if someone's POV is erroneous, it should be possible to show that through a frank discussion of logic and facts without ruffling any emotions. this way, the person in the wrong may also find it easier to convert to the correct position without being subjected to humiliation.
5.
lastly, related to point 3, you need to be open to your own position being wrong. the human condition is imperfect, and we are at anytime only availed of imperfect information and knowledge, so it is always possible that we have missed something in our judgement of another's POV. while the ideal is that what you felt to be wrong is wrong, but you do not know the particular circumstance which the other person has to face - i.e. a win-win where both can accept each other as correct, save for the missing information - it is also likely that you were mistaken about someone being wrong. bearing this in mind, know that your approaching someone about his mistake is already taking a risk - since you might be proven wrong in the end - hence it is important to have a good 'exit strategy'. knowing the above four points will allow you to back off easily without worsening the situation.
the act of accusation itself already communicates certain ideas, including but not limited to: "i am right and you are wrong", "i need to correct you", "you need to be corrected", "my position is superior to yours" or even "i will change you". generally, most people would not enjoy hearing such messages - unless some priming is done prior. the feeling of being identified as "wrong" immediately sparks off feelings of vulnerability and invalidity - possibly even an inferior complex - as such, i would say that anyone who is possibly in the wrong needs to be treated delicately rather than harshly. this is especially important if the purpose of identifying the error is to correct the person for the person's own sake, rather than some self-righteous zealotry. if you want to correct someone, are you doing it for the right reasons? that is an equally important question to think about before rashly going ahead: it will drive all your body language and methods of going about it.
here are some relevant passages from the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not judge"
Matthew 12:33-37 "Words betray the heart"
Matthew 18:15-18 "Brotherly correction"
Matthew 23:13-32 "The sevenfold indictment of the scribes and Pharisees"
2 Timothy 2:14-26 is also very instructive!
so there. just some easy to remember points about communication. my theory is, that if such points were remembered, the world would be more peaceful already! and you are welcome to accuse me of being over-idealistic =)
1.
when a person is accused of something - anything - the accused usually becomes defensive immediately. a person who is defensive is also usually closed off to others' POV, since he is more concerned with defending his own POV. this means that a defensive person is almost impossible to convince - he is only convinced of his own convictions. in fact, putting a person on defense may have the opposite effect: he becomes more convicted in his original beliefs.
2.
accusations tend to suggest some form of moral authority. this may instantly nudge the recipient of your accusation to counter-accuse you of something in relation to your statement. assuming nobody is perfect, this may degenerate into a battle of accusations, whereby both parties simply turtle into their POVs and become hopelessly entrenched in their respective defensive positions. hardly anything worthwhile may be communicated in this case!
3.
the accuser tends to exude an aura of arrogance rather than humility. a humble person would not accuse - she would tend to "question gently" or "make an inquiry", lest she herself be proven wrong and fall flat in the face. yes, when you feel someone else is wrong about something, that does not mean you are correct! pointing out an error requires patience and humility, rather than rash smugness. if the accused perceives you to be arrogant, then your cause in pointing out a possible mistake is immediately lost.
4.
the above three points also tend to lead the accused towards an emotional response. while being passionate about your beliefs is not a bad thing, being passionate about an erroneous belief tends to be rather bad. so since you are already presuming that person to be wrong, the better strategy should be to avoid touching off emotions and focus on logic and facts. if someone's POV is erroneous, it should be possible to show that through a frank discussion of logic and facts without ruffling any emotions. this way, the person in the wrong may also find it easier to convert to the correct position without being subjected to humiliation.
5.
lastly, related to point 3, you need to be open to your own position being wrong. the human condition is imperfect, and we are at anytime only availed of imperfect information and knowledge, so it is always possible that we have missed something in our judgement of another's POV. while the ideal is that what you felt to be wrong is wrong, but you do not know the particular circumstance which the other person has to face - i.e. a win-win where both can accept each other as correct, save for the missing information - it is also likely that you were mistaken about someone being wrong. bearing this in mind, know that your approaching someone about his mistake is already taking a risk - since you might be proven wrong in the end - hence it is important to have a good 'exit strategy'. knowing the above four points will allow you to back off easily without worsening the situation.
the act of accusation itself already communicates certain ideas, including but not limited to: "i am right and you are wrong", "i need to correct you", "you need to be corrected", "my position is superior to yours" or even "i will change you". generally, most people would not enjoy hearing such messages - unless some priming is done prior. the feeling of being identified as "wrong" immediately sparks off feelings of vulnerability and invalidity - possibly even an inferior complex - as such, i would say that anyone who is possibly in the wrong needs to be treated delicately rather than harshly. this is especially important if the purpose of identifying the error is to correct the person for the person's own sake, rather than some self-righteous zealotry. if you want to correct someone, are you doing it for the right reasons? that is an equally important question to think about before rashly going ahead: it will drive all your body language and methods of going about it.
here are some relevant passages from the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not judge"
Matthew 12:33-37 "Words betray the heart"
Matthew 18:15-18 "Brotherly correction"
Matthew 23:13-32 "The sevenfold indictment of the scribes and Pharisees"
2 Timothy 2:14-26 is also very instructive!
so there. just some easy to remember points about communication. my theory is, that if such points were remembered, the world would be more peaceful already! and you are welcome to accuse me of being over-idealistic =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
