Following from Barret's post on interdisciplinarity, one might also wish to enquire into the problem of disciplinarity. In our case - Barret and I are both doctoral students in Canadian sociology departments - our professional association is engaged in a series of "professionalization" measures which, to be sure, are at once also disciplinary (in the sense of imposing discipline on those who call themselves sociologists or who study or teach or research in sociology departments) measures. This comes into close relief in two instances: first, changes to the structure and organization of our annual meeting and, second, larger arguments regarding the structure of the discipline in relation to other disciplines (this is external, boundary policing). In large part, this follows what from what is perceived as a 'coming crisis in English Canadian sociology' (for the most part, there is no communication between French language and English language sociologists in Canada - mostly because English Canadian sociologists can't be bothered to learn to read French and French Canadian sociologists have closer ties with other non-Canadian French language sociologists than they do with Canadian English language sociologists) premised upon the fact that most senior sociologists who presently dominate the discipline in Canada were more or less hired at the same time and will more or less retire at the same time, thus creating a power vacuum. The question, then, becomes what to do with sociology once the old guardians are gone.
For whatever reason, Canadian sociologists tend not to discuss these issues in public - our dirty laundry is aired in unread journals and unread newsletters. (For my part, I have a stack of unopened copies of the Canadian Review of Sociology, formerly the Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. First boundary policing measure: cut off the few anthropologists who still participate in what was called the Canadian Sociological and Anthropological Association.) Other disciplines, such as English language philosophy, however, enjoy bringing their reasoned debates to the level of a visceral spectacle more commonly found in celebrity gossip blogs, such as the Superficial, and fully, openly and gleefully engage in disciplinary policing right out in the open. (It makes for great reading in the same way that the Superficial does.)
Now, I have no desire to revisit the tired question - fought mainly by those who already control the discipline of philosophy anyway - of analytic vs. continental philosophy and the apparent delegation of the latter into "literary" or "social" or "political" or "cultural" theory housed at the margins of other disciplines... (I am in a sociology department in large part because of two reasons: (1) political theory has a distinctive conservative slant in the major departments in Canada and (2) the generally insular, hostile and venomous atmosphere displayed in English language philosophy.) It seems, the philosophers just can help themselves: endless quantifying of "the most important" or "greatest" philosopher through online polls, endless quantifying of "the most important" or "best" journals, publishers and doctoral programs, and endless disputes over, say, political theory and philosophy. (See here replying to here; and here and here and here and here and here - you get the idea!) Other than reeking simple-minded aristocracy, what do these endless fights - fought mostly on one or two blogs but involving dozens of people - mean, if anything?
Note: I expect John Emerson to step up to the plate on this one.
Recent Comments