Dear Friends, No.2

As I mentioned earlier, these discussions are part of my research on 
historiography of sociology, and I would be glad if you comrades read my 
work and give me the best comments, critiques and alike of yours. Thanks! 
Here you go:



        Marx, Weber and Durkheim. Why Bother-Dilemma



Marx, Weber and Durkheim ( or as it is held in current literature: MWD) are 
often held up as being the ' founding fathers' of sociology.  All three have 
had a profound


influence on the development of mainstream state sociology, and will 
undoubtedly continue to do so for the foreseeable future; most introductory 
sociology courses, for example, devote a substantial amount of time to their 
work. ( Ian McIntosh: 1997, 1) The relevant question, in my opinion, is not 
their current influence on mainstream sociology but the relevance of this 
influence for a sociology which does not take the logic of state as its own, 
but a sociology which is influentially relevant.  There is a widespread myth 
among the mainstream sociology ( and relatedely the historiography of 
mainstream sociology) which angrily attacks the deeds of sociologists during 
Interwar Period under Fascism and celebrates the heroism of those who did 
not yield to this intellectual prostitution.  The reason for this sense of 
pride among sociologists and consolidated by mainstream historiography is a 
well-entrenched belief that sociology is intrinsically an ' oppositional 
science'. ( Stephen P. Turner: 1992, 1)  Those who take this idea of 
sociology as an oppositional science are not really aware about the very 
basis of their opposition and how radical is this opposition.  Many of the 
sociologists whose careers had not prospered under totalitarian regimes 
found the myth of opposition very attractive and appealing one. However, 
those who left this totalitarian regimes and came either to England or 
America did not take a critical look at the very basis of their own success. 
Most of them who left Germany or Italy, not mention Russia or else, imagined 
that they escaped the pact diabolique altogether and got melted into the 
mainstream ideology.  But the case is more complicated than the mainstream 
historiography reveals.  sociology and social research is a subsidized 
activity, state-subsidized for the most part, and is thus morally bound to 
its patron and historically conditioned by the


relations and forms of patronage that support it. ( 1992, 10) In other 
words, those who escaped the Nazi patronage did not turn mature intellectual 
overnight but were patronized by a more complicated system of patronage.  In 
practice, sociologists cannot escape the pact diabolique in content, unlike 
what Turner asserts ( 1992, 10), but in form, and that is possible by change 
of patrons.

The relevance of this debate to our Classical Sociological Trio is going to 
be unfolded gradually.  From above discussion, one should get the idea that 
the classical influence of this trio has not to do with the intellectual 
relevance of these three thinkers solely. On the contrary there are more 
complicated mechanisms at hands which cannot be accounted by the simplistic 
mainstream historiography like McIntosh and et.al.  One of the major key in 
this regard is the executive role of the state and those who chart overall 
plan for the nation and run the ultimate key turns, obscurly termed national 
secuirty ( and becomes more evident when the ideas behind those overall 
plans and keys are threatened by some within the territory of the state or 
from the without.  These attitudes are remanants of a land-aristocracy 
ideology which have been updated and incorporated via the bogus idea of 
nation-state into the fabric of modern life. Without it the very structure 
of war-industry would be untenable.)

The 'Classic' sociological trio of Marx, Durkheim and Weber became a classic 
for reasons other than the mainstream mythology.  Marx due to his implicit 
endorsement of state and Durkheim/Weber due to their explicit endorsement of 
and theorizing about the State-Society, not Society per se, were 
incorporated within the state-


sponsored institutions.  In order to explicate my points, one can take into 
consideration the mainstream social thinkers from Comte to Habermas.  These 
thinkers have taken the individual nation-state (e.g., France, Italy, or 
Britain) as the focus of social analysis. ( S. Seidman: 1998, 329) But there 
is some ideological bias which cannot be explained by the Iron Hand of 
historical logic.  It seems there are other issues at hand than what these 
people want us to believe.  Wherever in Europe there was any state, or even 
desires which could be realized by stronger military power, there one could 
find discussions on, say, German Society, British Society, or French Society 
and their respective developments or share in inter-state-market.  On the 
other hand, one can barely find any discussion, at least in mainstream 
socio-political theory, about, say, Basque society, Northern Irsih society, 
Scottish society, Azeri society, Uzbeki society.  Instead you may find 
abundant debates on British Society, Spanish Society, Soviet society.  Were 
these latter units historical facts or just a desired reality presented by 
some and forcefully kept alive by an organ called state?  Why does the 
mainstream sociology follow the same track as the Realpolitik of ruling 
class?  Because in these units you can find state-society and the world 
consensus is around state and its parameters, and the rest is a matter of 
state-monitoring policies.

In other words, those who theorize against this established idea and the 
establishment based on this idea, firstly, would be considered as Utopians ( 
not in the sense of eutopia, i.e. somewhere good, but outopia, meaning 
nowhere. see Krishan Kumar: 1991, 1) or worse crazed individuals who do not 
understand the Realpolitik.


So, in a state-oriented-sponsored academy there could not be any place for 
the theorists who denied the quintessentiality of state and instead spoke of 
human society without any reliance on it.  On the contrary, their point of 
view, instead of being statist or for a de-centralized state oe alike, was 
based on active abolishment of state as an idea and as a establishment.

It is here and in this context, in my view, the Seidmanin points should be 
taken into consideration without incorporating the conclusions he wrongly 
wants to put forward.  In Contested Knowledge: Social Theory in the 
Postmodern Era, (1998. 171), he presents an interesting problem regarding 
science and politics, which could be read in relation to the politics of the 
sociological trio.  He rightly argues that, the institutionalization of 
sociology in Europe and the United States between 1890 and World War I was 
accomplished through a series of exclusions.  Many traditions of social 
thought did not find a place in the discipline of sociology.  He wrongly 
takes homosexuality and pedofile inclinations as social discourse, but 
excluding this point there is some relevant points in his argument.  As 
Seidman notes ( 1998. 171), a range of social discourses were excluded from 
the sociological body of knowledge but that did not imply their intellectual 
demise as such.  However, it should be noted that even Seidman does not get 
into the depth of problem.  Because he has just one point in mind and that 
is the establishment of sodomy as homosexuality and the latter's relevance 
as a social discourse.  That is why when he tries to make sense of American 
institutionalization of sociology and its subsequent exclusion of other 
discourses he does not even mention by name the Anarchist Tradition.  
Besides, he


like most mainstream sociologists take the politics of exclusion in 
simplistic terms and says:

silencing of social voices was not necessarily achieved
through censorship or repression; rather it was more un-
conscious, a matter of the consolidation of distinctive co-
nventions and codes that marked off the intellectual boun-
daries of sociology. ( ibid: 172)

The whole probelm evolves around this conceptual universe made on this 
unconscious affair which does not reflect the true mechanism of events, and 
Seidman does not help us in this regard either.  On the contrary he repeats 
the myth of unconsciousness and joins the mainstream historiography by 
pretending being an active radical.  The whole tradition of Anarchism could 
not be ignored just unconsciously, in particular, if one reminds himself of 
Spanish anarchism.  The other point which is not acknowleged in the 
literature is anarchism's Russian orientation in origin or at least 
elaboration.  Besides, one can mention Chicago anarchists like: August 
Spies, Michel Schwab, Oscar Neebe, Adolph Fischer, Louis Lingg, George 
Engel, Samuel Fielden, Albert R. Parsons, and alike who were sentenced on 
October 7th, 8th and 9th, 1886, in Chicago, Illinois.  By looking at their 
trial documents, which have hardly been completely read by historians ( let 
alone sociologists), one would get another view regarding this innocent 
unconscious mythology provided by mainstream sociological historiography.



In other words, the very construction of the ' Classics' and its perpetual 
debate in its current trio-shape - which takes the mechanism of 
exclusion/inclusion- is part of a wider issue which touches the sensitive 
areas of modern politics and the New World Order.  Those who are not 
included are not less important and their works do not suffer from chronical 
lack of coherence, on the contrary, the reason(s) are of another character.  
They do not fit the state-ideology and this point would take us far beyond 
the Marxist-Leninist critiques of state and would pull us closer to 
anarchists.






_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.