In my readings for the Crawler I often come across articles that use the term ‘sociological’ to express an ambiguous set of influences or circumstances related to a given news item. This week I was struck by an especially poignant example as the pundits and journalists swarmed around the Bristol Palin controversy, a teen pregnancy in the political spotlight.
New York Times columnist Adam Nagourney writes:
In many ways, how the country will react to the pregnancy of Ms. Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is more a sociological question than a political one. Yes, many officials in both parties — including Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Mr. McCain’s Democratic opponent — were quick on Monday to say that the private lives of candidates should be strictly off limits.
But this clearly stands as a challenge to the traditional image of a potential first family, and could well provide fodder for provocative conversations around kitchen tables or sly references in the late-night television comic-sphere. It will test again what voters deem private, at a time when the Web has pulled down so many curtains, and what in these times is considered a normal family life.
What should we as sociologists make of these vague references to the forces at play in our social world? Does the use of the term sociological become diluted when it remains unexplained?
What do you think?
Comments 2
Anonymous — September 3, 2008
I think that sociology is already a pretty diffuse field, so I doubt that vague references are going to do make it more diluted. Wikipedia calls it the scientific study of society, which in the mind of sociologists, makes everything fair game to study.
I find it interesting that while the author wants to make the distinction between sociology and political science, he does a poor job. He says it challenges images of a traditional family in the White House, but then ponders on the effect of the story on voting behavior. I think it shows that there are many ways to approach this story, and these disciplines often overlap. As a sociologist-in-training, I find myself doing the same thing, so I really don't fault him.
bigbruther — September 3, 2008
I saw this in the NYT as well. My gut reaction was instantly negative, but after thinking about it, I kinda felt the author was on to something. I kinda agree that there is something sociological about how the country reacts to, gulp, Ms. Palin; although what I think that is, is probably different than the article's author. Anyway, I think sociology should get - and needs - good press, so the fact that our discipline is mentioned in this context sits right by me.