X-Message-Number: 19184
References: <>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:55:53 +0200
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #19171 - #19179

At 9:00 AM +0000 2002-05-31, CryoNet wrote:
>Message #19176
>From: "mike99" <>
>Subject: science studies and social constructivism
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:22:26 -0600
>David Stodolsky wrote:
>>Social constructionism at its foundation is extremely conservative, fascist
>>according to some published work. Given that it is a methodologically
>>flawed, its easy for its proponents to come to any conclusion whatsoever.
>>These conclusions tend to support the current power holders and dominant
>>social views.

>I disagree about the foundation of social constructivism. Any reading of the
>texts in this field quickly reveals that almost every one comes from the
>Left, not the Right. They are not fascist, but rather Politically Correct

You can find the article in the European J. of Social Psychology (don't
have the ref handy. but it's probably over ten years back). The point was
that an ethnomethodologist standing at the entrance to the gas ovens would
be occupied with taking notes, rather than taking action. Ethnomethodology
is the area of social science which theoretically underpins social
constructivism. For a description of its development, see Mullins, NG.
(1973). The development of specialties in social science: The case of
Ethnomethodology, Science Studies, 3, 245-273. I was at the Univ. of Cal.,
Irvine at the time (early 70's) that Harvey Sacks, the patron saint of the
movement, was professor there, so I know this area quite well. Sacks
promoted "Conversation Analysis", the precursor to the attempt to apply
text analysis to all things.

Marxist's are action oriented and materialists, so they didn't relate to
this kind of development. It wouldn't surprise me to find leftists of the
German Romanticist persuasion promoting it, however, just as some of them
have joined the anti-cloning movement.

>Traditionalist religions don't waste their time writing social
>constructivist critiques of science; they waste their time writing
>creationist nonsense that mimics science.

Calling these creationists intellectuals is giving them a bit too much
credit. And they certainly don't rise to the level of academics. Their
stuff doesn't make it into peer reviewed journals.

>As for opposition to nuclear power, isn't this mostly a Green political
>cause? I don't recall seeing the Greens ever listed as traditionalists,
>conservatives or fascists.

Greens tend toward conservatism, opposing genetically modified crops, etc.
There was a book in Danish on Eco-facism a few years back. Probably similar
work is available in English. I recently spoke with one of these Green
extremists, he felt that one billion was the maximum population that the
Earth could support, and that the rest should be exterminated.


David S. Stodolsky, PhD    PGP: 0x35490763    

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19184