Robert Wuthnow, another sociologist for whom I have great respect led the discussion. The first question pertained to Berger's most famous book (written with Thomas Luckmann), The Social Construction of Reality. There, Berger & Luckmann demonstrated that what we take for reality is filtered through socially situated interpretations. Wuthnow asked Berger if he is attracted to the contemporary constructivist branch of social theory, which if taken to the extreme, allows for equality of all competing interpretations. Berger responded that he's uncomfortable with such a free ranging relativism. The original body of theory never embraced relativism; it simply tried to show how human beings construct meaning within relatively confined social spaces. These meanings do not negate the objective realities which trigger them. [During the Q & A period, a debate about objectivity developed].
Wuthnow asked Berger if he thought there were any points where our discipline took a wrong turn. Berger replied that two come to mind:
- The 1950s brought on the Lazarsfeldian style of quantitative analysis which emphasizes variables and measurement. As these methods gained hegemony, they limited knowledge to that which is produced statistically.
- In the late 1960s, the cultural revolution led to an infusion of ideology into sociology. The social scientist came to be an agent of movements; rather than a scholar who comments on them.
He continued to pursue this theme of objectivity.
Be wary of any initiatives in sociology where the answer is pre-set by the way the question was raised.
I think Berger's assessment is quite accurate. When asked what we should be doing about this, he suggested sociologists should select the big complex problems for study (inequality, latent effects of pluralism, etc), but they should also stick to being sociologists (rather than movement coordinators or activists). His view is not that we shouldn't study politically contested issues, but only that we allow our positionality to dictate our findings.
