I really got the impression that Barbara was separating economics from sociology. Obviously she knows better, and I suspect that her purpose was to emphasize the other fields of social science. It may have merely been the way in which she phrased her views.

Though I'm no sociologist, I do also laugh, or at the very least chuckle, at the sociology/socialism references. I will admit, concerning the assertion that the sociology department in its entirety (at least in the US), tends to be "socialist" is not surprising to me anymore. It's just a matter of history and curriculum, cause and effect. Furthermore, if a Council of Social Science Advisors does not equate or amount to a degree of, or even represent socialism (or likewise does not "politicize" the issue(s)), I don't know what does.

If readers, and perhaps Barbara Risman have not done so yet, I highly recommend adding the study of praxeology to your reading list.

All in all, it's great to hear some young voices, such as mine is, offering their studies and thoughts. Great podcast. Clear, concise and I look forward to more.

do you mean to distinguish sociology as a subset of social science? i suppose this is true. my confusion lies in my idea as an "ology" being a "study of", whereas, social sciences would refer to any of the particular studies. but i do see that you are technically correct, and i concede.

and i do understand the need to balance the disciplines and studies. they each have their own part to play, and the debate rages on.

in-so-far-as generally equating the social sciences with socialism, i did not mean it as an accurate representation of what i think per se, but only as a point of focus (as it was mentioned in the podcast specifically), and i see that you agree in the general "leftist" trend.

without delving into much debate at this moment, i do offer 2 points of reference.

1) my understanding of socialism as a theory of state refers to a system prohibiting private property and thereby institutionalizing all resources and production under a bureaucratic authority.

[a voluntary, so to speak, or evolution of, a collective consciousness is another matter altogether in my opinion, though the two are often inter-related for many various, seemingly obvious, reasons]

2) national defense as represented by the military would be a real-time example of a socialist endeavour in modern day society. under this consideration, all state activities are subject to a variant of socialism. fascism, communism, and socialism are all related in this manner as a collective methodology(?) and the USA contains each to a degree.

[again, in my opinion, the voluntary and coercive must be analyzed apart from one another where-ever possible]

i hope my amateur, and sometimes ill-use of language, is adequate enough for intelligent debate

"i see that you agree in the general “leftist” trend."

correction *

"i see we agree that there is in fact a general leftist trend, at least to some degree"

if it helps to isolate this material from a broader concept so as to concentrate the debate and give you a better idea of where my concepts are originating (if it was not already a speculation), i will admit that i subscribe to the libertarian idea of class analysis.

Left-learning attitudes and political identity among professors does not necessarily mean "socialism", particularly when it's narrowly defined as "a theory of state ... prohibiting private property". Many libertarian socialists would, of course, disagree with this, and many more liberals of all varieties (classical, modern, etc) would disagree as well. Even calling oneself "socialist" and favor stronger state intervention does not mean favoring "prohibiting private property." For example, the Scandinavian countries have a strong socialist tradition, but they of course have private property. It's about as fair to say "socialism" unites the left as to say "fascism" unites the right (from religious conservatives to economic libertarians).

But anyway, back to sociology: the political affiliation of professors doesn't mean their findings or policy prescriptions will have a clear-cut political direction to them. For instance, see the discussion in the interview about maternal leave policy in Sweden vs. the US. Which policy is more "leftist"? Her point is that it's actually not that clear.

To the assertion "economists are, of course, social scientists", I posit that in
reduced form, economists are fundamentally
derivative accountants- anything more is a
concatenation of other scholarly disciplines
and is why economists are stigmatized as practitioners of "dismal science". Dismal,
because where there is no structure or context there is no science, no paradigm, no epistemology. Invisible Hands do their handy-work and people get rich- that's the universe in which economists are validated
and in which the rest of the world suffers
the consequence. Let sociologists and other
learned scholars form objective committees
to assist in guiding our destiny through
governance, and let economists eat cake.

Hey Jesse, if you're still around: see what I mean about sociology vs. economics? :)

yeah, i see it and am aware of this attitude towards economics. but this is simply a denial of everything we know about economics. there can be no numbers to construct models and representations unless there is human actitivity to observe. starting from the axiom that humans act, it is easy to see how every decision is an economic one in the sense that time and resources must be utilized in this, or that, fashion. and should i act on this now or later, etc. if it were already known how and what to do there wouldn't be a problem. and overcoming scarcity would simply become a matter of patience and hard work since the correct means of utilization of time and resources would already be known. but this is not the case at all. the natural state of scarcity combined with the problem of human knowledge, error, and preference necessarily establishes a plethora of economic questions and obstacles.

everyone, "economist" or not, is faced with these choices. so then, how to coordinate human action? i think it's worthwhile to point out that economists, jim, as we are usually acquainted with them, (keep in mind that economists, as a profession, have been around only a few centuries) are giving advice, devising empirical charts and graphs, instructing people to do this, that, and the other thing. whereas, there is a much more effective way of being an economist in my opinion. the job of the economist, as mises said, firstly, should be to show what cannot be done, what is not feasible. the goal being to explain the goings-ons in the market. [see: the late scholastics, turgot, bastiat, jean baptiste say] but by no means should the economist necessarily be in a position of making decisions for people.[think: Council of Economic Advisors] that is exactly the opposite of the very conception of a non-coercive market.

so far as libertarian socialists are concerned, given my definition of socialism as a theory of the state, i understand that there are those who still cling to attributes of marxian class analysis, proudhon, and the like. but this group still does not endorse the state regardless, due to the inherrent coercion. i think jon was identifying, correctly, libertarian socialists and their assertion of private property as necessitating exploitation - thats what they see the state as protecting - hence, one maine reason to abolish the institution. [i would recommend Marxian and Austrian Class Analysis by Hans-Herman Hoppe]

*kropotkin helped to make this distinction between two socialisms - state socialism and socialist anarchism. i can't really say there is much difference between socialist anarchism and libertarian socialism.
personally, i understand libertarian socialism as a contradiction in terms and see is it merely as a means to provide common ground between the anti-statist libertarians and anti-statist socialists. otherwise it is confusing and useless.

though it can be hard to put libertarians all in one neat box, there isn't necessarily an irreconcilable divide.

-as brad spangler notes:
"If democracy is government by the consent of the governed, then the society of unanimous consent free market libertarians described as a stateless free market is also the libertarian socialist ideal of participatory democracy. It’s not thesis vs antithesis, but yin and yang or skeleton and muscle"

-skye stewart notes spanglers thought and adds:
"both direct/unhindered democracy as sought by far left progressives, and the genuine free market uncorrupted by state privilege and intervention sought by austro-libertarian anarchists are posited as systems of decentralized equilibrating processes. ...

The framework of the latter, however, it can be argued, does not contain the seeds of it's own destruction.

The implicit objective of an equality of authority to those persons it comprises, is violated at the outset in the former system, due to the status of the political entity with which life is managed and it's inherent incompatibility with property rights, ie, the 'consensuality' of it's participants."

generally libertarians are distinct in the fact that they are concerned with property rights, how they are applied, and their relation to the nonaggression principle

as rothbard said: "all rights are property rights" -

i, prima facie, own myself.

see: epistemological problems of economics, the nature and developement of the social sciences

just came across this gem:
M.N. Rothbard: A Note On Mathematical Economics, http://mises.org/story/3638

....and thought it was quite fitting given jim's declaration that:
"in reduced form, economists are fundamentally derivative accountants"

praxeology, austrian economics
XV. The Market 1. The Characteristics of the Market Economy
http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/audiobooks/mises/HumanAction/HumanAction_15_1.mp3