II. Debunking and Being Skeptical
A. Debunking
According to Berger, it's the job of sociology to debunk
commonly accepted notions about society. Debunking is a
process of questioning actions and ideas that are usually
taken for granted. It refers to looking behind the facade of
everyday life. It refers to looking at the behind-the-scenes
patterns and processes that shape the behavior observed in
the social world (Andersen & Taylor, 2001:6).
B. Being Skeptical
Barkan (1997:5) contends that sociology, given the emphasis
on the structural basis for individual behavior, often
challenges conventional wisdom. He cites Max Weber in
arguing that one of sociology's most important goals is to
uncover what Weber called "inconvenient facts." Peter
Berger (in Barkan, 1997:6) contends "sociology refuses to
accept official interpretations of society." Often official
interpretations are filled with propaganda. According to
Berger, it's the job of sociology to debunk this motif. With this
in mind, students of sociology should acquire a healthy
skepticism regarding overly simplified (or commonly
accepted) conceptions of human affairs. It is tempting to look
for simple answers or what Ross Perot (1992) calls "sound
bites" to explain complex social phenomena.
Example: Hitler blamed Germany's post-World War One
problems on the Jews.
Example: Few realize the benefits associated with
undocumented immigration. Example: Are drugs bad? Many don't consider that the
United States exports dangerous drugs (e.g., tobacco).
III. The Myth of Objectivity
Many often claim to strive for objectivity. Objectivity is sought
both in the subject under study and as a strategy for
teaching students. At some level, however, the concept of
objectivity is a myth. What appears objective may simply be
a political event. The positions defined and accepted as
objective may, in fact, represent the positions of people,
organizations, or governments who happen to hold power.
While objectivity in the strictest sense is a myth, it is at least
possible, and desirable, to strive for a common
understanding. Often, social concepts and even vocabulary
is vague. For example, many may state a desire to reduce
levels of inequality in the U.S. What, exactly, does 'reducing
inequality' mean? Do we mean 'equal opportunity' as inferred
by affirmative action? Do we mean reducing the income-gap
or wealth-gap between the wealthiest and poorest in our
society? Or, do we mean 'radical leveling' as practiced by the
Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields of Cambodia? How can
we recognize whether we have achieved our goal? Arguably,
Cambodia had greater 'equality' between citizens in 1978
than the United States now has
More
Less
