Scientific Sociology at Bay?

It is noted that sociol'ts are simultaneously charged with irresponsibility in standing aloof from struggles for soc justice & with serving insidiously as handmaidens of the forces of soc injustice. Implicit in this issue is the question of whether sociol is or can become or should be an objective sci. In this context, a review of data, method, & theory of sociol shows a swing from armchair theorizing to data-grubbing, an assumption, only recently challenged, that all segments of US society share a common set of values (white Me) & communicate in terms of a common set of concepts, & a most recent turmoil over the morality & validity of sci'fic sociol'al endeavors. Some serious scholars have come of late to espouse the doctrine that, in atonement for past sins of white Me ethnocentrism, a whole set of other ethnocentrisms must now be instit'ized. The very possibility of a value-free sociol is now being denied by members of the Radical Caucus & the Black Caucus of the ASA, on the grounds that objectivity implies moral irresponsibility. This is rejected with the argument that 'to renounce the ideal of objective sci'fic sociol is to commit us to a future of even more blind struggle than that which surrounds us today. We must choose... between the ideal of objectivity & intellectual anarchy.' The solution is seen to lie in surmounting the barriers of ethnocentrism, in learning not to project upon others the implicit values & thoughtways of one's own culture or subculture, & in an intimate collaboration among scholars of diff ethnic origins, aimed at discovering uniformities underlying the patent diff's in cultures. While sociol'ts should not be diverted by the shrill protests of the various minority groups, they should pay attention to the vitally important message latent in these protests: that they must work toward a universally valid sociol. M. Maxfield.