Darn you society!

I get the feeling many in certain academic fields (humanities and certain social sciences) are innately insecure. Or they're just idiots with a Phd. Maybe both. 

Academic buzzword: social construct.

This can be used in a variety of ways, such as "Gender is a social construct, " to "the way sociology is seen today is socially constructed due to numerous reasons ... "

When I read sociologists using "social construct," depending on the context, I cannot help but cringe.

Let's not forget "cisgender." Now this word isn't widely used (if at all in any serious capacity) in the social sciences, but it's used by people - if given the change to be SJWiology Phd holders - like it raises their acumen 20 points beyond its original setting. Saying the word cuts through all the hurt, oppression and mental abuse felt by all sexually confused, border-line autistic and "I-suck-at-sports-so-sports-are-for-Neanderthals" types.

Here's my favorite by Northwestern associate professor Brayden King -

This quote was one of many comments on a provocative article worrying about the legitimacy of sociology.

It's my favorite because it reeks of indignation. "Those narrow minded parents make me insecure about majoring in sociology, but if I choose the less-than socially acceptable major I'd be forging my own path! Forget you accounting!" How noble and courageous. 

As King goes on -

Dear Allah. Socially constructed this ... socially constructed that ... I wonder how civil planners see bridges. "That's a man-made body. We can deconstruct it and understand exactly how it was built, its purpose and why its important to a city if not the place where it's planted!" Oh wait, that's FAR more too much common sense.

King, stop blaming society for sociology's lack of respect in academia if not the world. Maybe looking at the individuals that uphold the discipline -- it's content that is produced, the issues it focuses on etc. -- than "society" aka "the masses" will offer some valuable insights. The saving grace of King's post is the lack of rigor that sociology seems to advertise for non-serious college students.

As someone who does take sociology seriously, and as someone who majored in it, I will give credit to King's awareness on how sociology is seen through the eyes of an undergraduate. The discipline needs to focus, if not balance, the qualitative theories (mostly ridiculous) with solid research method classes (at least two) aided with a sound understanding of data analysis and statistics, capped with a senior project (or two) demonstrating this acquired skill set. The fact is is that sociology leans on many other fields - math (subfield: statistics), philosophy, political science, economics, journalism and history. This isn't necessarily a bad thing until material is allowed to be publish revealing nothing new that can be observed by the naked eye, or by anyone who wants to observe a certain group or demographic without the approval of the IRB. This is where anthropology takes the edge from its sister (sociology). It doesn't take a genius to be an ethnographer, but it does take skill to be a sound & honest ethnographer.

And since I'm talking about sociology and its health, I'll say this: Sociology doesn't take a genius or brilliant mind to understand, let alone major or receive high marks in. What it does take is someone who can take a field without much of a clear defined body and make it into something worthwhile. Out of all the social sciences it is the closest one to putty/cay -- it takes someone skilled to make it into something respectable.

As I asked one my of sociology professors, on my last day of my university years "How do you see the future of sociology?" His smile turned into a serious line and his eye burrowed into his head. "Not bright."