Conferences & Call for Proposals | LGBTQIA: "Call for Submissions: Journal of Hate Studies
The Gonzaga University Institute for Action Against Hate* is soliciting submissions for the seventh volume of the peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary Journal of Hate Studies. We are interested in papers from various disciplines that address “The Science of Hate.” This may include research and knowledge about hate’s origins and manifestations seen through the lenses of empirical sciences that rely on experimental, quantifiable data or the scientific method and emphasize reliability and validity. We are also interested in papers that explore solutions and strategies for addressing hate from an empirical perspective, as well as methods and content that may combat the manifestation of hate. A special invitation is extended to scholars from disciplines such as biology, medicine, chemistry, economics, genetics, cybernetic evolution, and the neurosciences. Submissions are welcome from all disciplines. Submissions are due by February 1, 2009, and should be between 5000-10,000 words. Address submissions and questions to the Gonzaga University Institute for Action Against Hate, AD Box 43, 502 E. Boone Avenue, Spokane WA 99258-0043; email address: againsthate@gonzaga.edu."
Welcome
I think Sociology is a lot like how the writer and director of The Incredibles describes cartoons:
In sociology, we often call this the "definition of the situation". It could be extended perhaps to also capture the spirit of what Mills called the "Sociological Imagination". No matter what moniker we give it, it is with this "essence" that I believe sociologists must concern themselves, not as rigid actuaries or impartial "scientists", but rather to approach their task much like the artist--with expression, grace, humility, as well as a good dose of criticism.
When an artist visualizes a painting they are working on, they have in their minds-eye an image of how it will look. Even when the "reality" of what they are actually looking at may simply be a block of stone or a blank canvas and table full of paints to mix. They can shape the creative process, but they do not control it completely. What shape their work will finally achieve is largely due to how they urge their clay, stone, paint or musical notation to find its expression in the face of significant constraints, i.e., time, temperature, temper and even a little bit of luck. Their final product may not look "identical" to what they had in mind, but their ability to "bump it up" can have breathtaking results. Take Michelangelo's masterpiece "Il Davido". Considered virtually perfect by many in the art world, the marble from which this sublime form was born was was rejected as flawed by others:
The gallery that houses this masterpiece is entered through a good sized hallway lined on both sides with the guardians of David--a group of unfinished works called "The Captives", aptly named because they look like bodies frozen in the cold hard marble yearning to break out. Michelangelo abandoned them because they were too far from his vision. However, when I visited the museum, I was really taken by these figures--I could see on the one hand how they were not "perfect", but there was something quite spectacular in their imperfection. It all boiled down to a matter of interpretation and vision.
Sociologists face the same dilemma. I think we have a great chance to work with diverse communities to address important social problems. We must remain aware, however, that our goal is not to "reproduce reality" or impose solutions on communities that are external and coercive of their needs. Our job is to use all of the tools in our kit to "bump it up" and encourage individuals to appreciate the beauty of community involvement and the satisfaction of (cultural) self-determination.
The reason to do animation is caricature. Good caricature picks out the essense of the statement and removes everything else. It's not simply about reproducing reality; It's about bumping it up.Good research and teaching by sociologists should likewise attempt to find the essence of a statement and remove everything else. Of course I am not naive enough to think that "essence"="TRUTH", or that all of the external forces and pressures individuals confront, especially in marginalized communities, can somehow be magically removed or held constant. I consider what Bird calls essence more a reflection of the process of sense making in which people engage everyday in order to bring some modicum of rationality to a seemingly hyper-irrational set of social contexts and interactions.
In sociology, we often call this the "definition of the situation". It could be extended perhaps to also capture the spirit of what Mills called the "Sociological Imagination". No matter what moniker we give it, it is with this "essence" that I believe sociologists must concern themselves, not as rigid actuaries or impartial "scientists", but rather to approach their task much like the artist--with expression, grace, humility, as well as a good dose of criticism.
When an artist visualizes a painting they are working on, they have in their minds-eye an image of how it will look. Even when the "reality" of what they are actually looking at may simply be a block of stone or a blank canvas and table full of paints to mix. They can shape the creative process, but they do not control it completely. What shape their work will finally achieve is largely due to how they urge their clay, stone, paint or musical notation to find its expression in the face of significant constraints, i.e., time, temperature, temper and even a little bit of luck. Their final product may not look "identical" to what they had in mind, but their ability to "bump it up" can have breathtaking results. Take Michelangelo's masterpiece "Il Davido". Considered virtually perfect by many in the art world, the marble from which this sublime form was born was was rejected as flawed by others:
Michelangelo took a rejected piece of marble that had numerous veins running through it and carved it into this Goliath-sized sculpture that was originally commissioned by Opera del Duomo
Michelangelo was young when he completed The David, yet you can see his talent and genius in this sculpture. He was 25 years old when he began the statue in 1501. No other sculptor wanted this piece of marble because it could be prone to shatter, but Michelangelo created a masterpiece with it...
The gallery that houses this masterpiece is entered through a good sized hallway lined on both sides with the guardians of David--a group of unfinished works called "The Captives", aptly named because they look like bodies frozen in the cold hard marble yearning to break out. Michelangelo abandoned them because they were too far from his vision. However, when I visited the museum, I was really taken by these figures--I could see on the one hand how they were not "perfect", but there was something quite spectacular in their imperfection. It all boiled down to a matter of interpretation and vision.
Sociologists face the same dilemma. I think we have a great chance to work with diverse communities to address important social problems. We must remain aware, however, that our goal is not to "reproduce reality" or impose solutions on communities that are external and coercive of their needs. Our job is to use all of the tools in our kit to "bump it up" and encourage individuals to appreciate the beauty of community involvement and the satisfaction of (cultural) self-determination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment