02/04/19, thought collection: sociology reading

i was just introduced to the concept of ‘metanarratives’ which is described as “claims & theories that are totalizing & universalizing. they are master stories that explain history & society as possessing a universal truth” & i’ve heard that one before, in a way. seems like what my xtian schools pushed in that their portrait of how one should live their life was, in their minds, the one & only way to be. in this case i know that back then my answer was that my schools were wrong. but now i feel it’s more accurate to say that i don’t feel their kind of religion is for me. i always go back to “who am i to say?” & at the same time i would only agree to the above if xtians returned the sentiment (‘you do you, you secular fool’… if only they’d be that.. ‘chill’),,

(but back to the topic,) the book continues, giving an example probably the most relevant out of the others in its category: “the Marxist claim that historical progress will lead to global communism is a metanarrative” & also “as is the idea that free-market democracy is an inevitable end point of history” that reminds me of how i remind myself that sweeping generalizations aren’t ultimately very helpful

someone named Jean-François Lyotard (they lived bitch.. from 1924-98) was the person who brought up ‘metanarratives’. they argued that there is incredulity (the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something) to metanarratives (MNs) in our society

– from personal observations i would agree it’s an unfortunate tendency of many ppl

they argued: we fear MNs bc they’re homogenizing (to make uniform or similar) & silencing. “they act to exclude & even violently expel individuals, groups, & ways of life that do not fit into them”

– well, by now we know there are unfortunately exceptions to that rule. for example nazis, fascists, & other equally aligned scum. from what i’ve surmised those groups would embrace excluding & violently expelling individuals, groups, &….etc.

“postmodernism questions sociology’s claim to be a social science concerned with progress & reform” bc the book says postmodernists believe that we’ll never “possess enough knowledge of society to identify laws & that human knowledge changes over time anyway”, they say, “[besides,] sociologists can never fully remove their individual political & cultural biases from their research” & finally, they question the “deployment of positivism” i just looked up ‘positivism’ & almost fell down another (new but very interesting) information hole (about philosophy, omg) but i’m kind of burnt out now so maybe in the future