Dirty Plate Society: British sociologist questioned his own Science
The self-critical title of the book "Social Sciences as Witchcraft" by the Polish-British sociologist Stanislaw Andreski, published back in 1972 but still relevant, hides not so much disbelief in sociology itself as frustration at the clumsy categorical apparatus of most sociologists. Critic Lidia Maslova presents the book of the week — especially for Izvestia.
Stanislav Andreski
"Social sciences as witchcraft"
Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 2025. — Translated from English. Dmitry Kralechkin. — 336 p.
In the first chapter with the catchy title "Why shit where you eat?" Andreski, reflecting on the boundary between the exact sciences and the social sciences, identifies the original and almost irremediable flaw of any humanitarian research: "Pretentious but vague verbosity, endless repetitions of platitudes and disguised propaganda — that's what sets the agenda today, and at least 95% of research is actually a re-examination of things discovered long ago and repeatedly.". All this turns Andreski's book, as he himself admits, into a study not so much on the "sociology of knowledge" as on the "sociology of ignorance," in which evasion and deception are usually more profitable than the truth.
Feeling his slippery position as a scientist who is going to expose successful and reputable colleagues, Andreski gives an example from another, not scientific, but rather literary field: "... a free thinker may consider himself lucky if he lives in a situation in which he is only neglected, but not thrown into prison and They don't call Boris Pasternak a "pig who shits where he eats," to use the vivid epithet that KGB head Vladimir Semichastny awarded Boris Pasternak.
This sudden and somewhat isolated, though very sincere, resentment for Pasternak, whom no one will remember by the end of the book, betrays Andreski as a man of a rather poetic turn. He talks mostly logically and rationally, but it is felt that in his fellow sociologists he is annoyed not only by their servility and commercialism, but to a much greater extent by linguistic insensitivity, clumsy clerical style, inability to form their quack pseudoscientific calculations into a beautiful, and only therefore convincing, text.
But this is just an additional color, an underlying feeling from "Social Sciences as witchcraft", which, without unnecessary lyrics, describe in detail and argumentatively the problems of research throughout the history of sociology, it is clear enough even for a reader who is far from the stated topic. Andreski sees the fundamental problem in "the tendency of people as objects of research to react to what is said about them." In this regard, natural sciences, by definition, initially lose out to social sciences: "... imagine how sad the fate of a natural scientist would be if the objects of his research got into the habit of reacting to what he says about them, that is, if substances could read or hear what the chemist writes or says. about them, and they were ready to jump out of their containers and burn him as soon as they didn't like what they saw on his board or in his notebook." According to Andreski, the ability of objects of social research to respond to its results creates three kinds of obstacles to the development of social sciences: difficulties with verifying statements, pressure exerted on researchers, and "wide opportunities for the irresponsible use of lies and cryptopropaganda."
For Andreska, the collective image of an unscrupulous sociologist-cryptopropagandist is embodied by Pangloss, a character in Voltaire's philosophical novel Candide, a verbose quietist who believes that "everything is for the best in this best of all worlds." Throughout the book, Andreski attacks numerous examples of "panglossia" with all his acrimonious wit, exposing sociological verbal tricks that only obscure the essence of what is happening: "What capitalist would not be pleased to hear that he is faced not with a bloody revolution, but with the instrumentalization of countervalues and counternormalism No. 5 by the reference groups of the counter elite?"
There are plenty of examples of such shamanic gibberish in Andreski's book. Analyzing them, the author sometimes reaches considerable humorous heights, especially in the most acrimonious chapter, "The Smoke Screen of Jargon." Here Andreski exposes such a common sociological place as "role theory" as an "empty fad": "... in the company of sociologists and psychologists, the words "role" and "actor" can be heard with the same frequency as a checkmate among soldiers. Why is it not an "individual", a "person", a "doer", but an "actor"?"The "theory of role", according to Andreski's skeptical opinion, consists of "pompous, vague and unusually long rehashes of what has long been known: in each group, its members play roles that sometimes complement each other." and sometimes they contradict; sometimes individuals change their roles or exchange them; and often a person acts in different roles that can both reinforce each other and be incompatible. Finally, a group can act effectively only if the roles of the members are in harmony with each other."
With particular pleasure, Andreski walks through some of the "sacred cows" of the socio-psychological universe, which have earned special honor largely due to their catchy terminology and self-promotion, for example, according to Sigmund Freud: "If he had said that the baby's thinking and behavior are guided by the search for sensual pleasures, but would not have called them sexual; if he had not If Freud had started calling the baby a "polymorphic pervert" and had found a more sober term for his tendency to seek pleasure in sucking on his mother's breast or his own thumb, as well as in relieving tension in his intestines or bladder, he would have formulated a more convincing theory, which, however, would have proved less suitable for the role of a surrogate religion.
In a similar manner, Andreski hilariously subverts many sociological concepts that seem to be revolutionary discoveries only due to the esoteric language of their presentation, used to impress, first of all, grant-giving clients. All this, however, does not mean at all that the social sciences can be given up as a cynical applied tool for serving the prevailing ideology, unable to properly explain the patterns and causal relationships governing human existence in a team. Of course, Andreski writes, "in areas where intellectual and moral considerations mix, the struggle between the forces of light and darkness will never end." However, his book is a good help for those who want to get on the right side in this struggle and learn to recognize "clever sorcerers dressed in the latest scientific fashion" behind the crackling phraseology.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
