Why must sociological theorizing make sweeping historical claims? If we are, after all, sociologists, can we not be content to talk about how it is instead of laying claim to particular insight into how it used to be and, by extension, where it is going. I have the sinking suspicion that, in many ways, the way it is is the way it was is the way it will be.
If one member of my toddler's playgroup picks up an unused toy and, glaring at her compatriots, announces, "Mine!" that is sufficient to insight conflict as other toddlers attempt to wrest previously unremarkable object from her grasp. I could say that, with the rise of post-fordism and the increased subjectivity of worth due to globalism, objects increasingly derive value, not from their utility or material properties, but instead from the esteem placed upon them by others.
Even if not silly, not particularly necessary or accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment