When you’re a Sociologist like me, and your field has no credibility, people just assume you’re stupid and don’t bother sending you their Final and Completely True Theory of X in the first place. On the other hand, it does invite people to assume the answer to any problem you are studying is simply obvious common sense.But sociology is a victim of its own success here. All of the big insights of sociology, from its beginnings in the 19th century up to 1950s work like that of Erving Goffman are indeed common sense, not because they were already known, but because they have been incorporated into the intellectual baggage of everyone in Western societies, educated or not. No one, for example, would be accused of talking academic jargon if they raised the problem of “peer group pressure” at their local school, or made a reference to ‘social status’.
By contrast, almost nothing in economics has managed to become common sense. Something as basic as comparative advantage, a concept developed nearly 200 years ago, remains as counter-intuitive as quantum physics to most people. Opportunity cost also at least a century old, similarly requires years of intensive training before it becomes common sense rather than a memorised definition.
Yet it would be only a slight exaggeration to say that the basic analysis associated with these concepts is universally accepted by economists. Opponents of free trade would want to point out dangers in the uncritical use of comparative advantage as a guide to policy, and behavioral economists might observe that, in practice, people worry about sunk costs as well as, or instead of opportunity costs, but these qualifications do not affect the validity of the underlying analysis.
“Market”, “cost/benefit analysis”, “capital”, “profit”? Sure, some people may disagree about their meaning/value, but would they still be used in the way they are if economics hadn’t existed?
Though sometimes represented as the physics of money, economics is just a branch of sociology—what else could it be? Economists should show a llittle respect for the mother discipline from time to time.
By the way, have you guys ever decided whether your analyses of material culture should be emic or etic?
That may be because economists desperately fight common sense on an intermittent basis.
“Comparative advantage” is what my broker uses to justify taking his normal fees when the portfolio only drops 5% while others are dropping 10%. (Similarly, “market forces” keep those -10%ers employed at high rates, on the delusion that a dart board, chimpanzee, or Indian national with a subscription to the online WSJ and some brokerage reports couldn’t do as well.)
Meanwhile, “opportunity cost” gets used to argue that one cannot do two things (op cit.Tyler Cowen’s you-can’t-both-vote-and-donate; but is too often considered on a strictly direct monetary basis. (One could work extra hours and theoretically make more money because of it, but there are likely to be intangible—and perhaps tangible, e.g., divorce—effects on the home life.)
“these qualifications do not affect the validity of the underlying analysis.” The Banach-Tarksi paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_Paradox) doesn’t affect the validity of mathematics, but neither does anyone make policy recommendations based on the fact that one can divide a marble into a finite number of parts and reassemble those parts into a sphere the size of the sun.
The comparative advantage link contains a similar statement: “Models are, by their nature, simplifications of the real world and thus all economic models contain unrealistic assumptions. Therefore, to dismiss the results of economic analysis on the basis of unrealistic assumptions means that one must dismiss all insights contained within the entire economics discipline.” This implies that economists aren’t interested in refining models to make them more realistic. I’m sure that’s not so — that in the 200 years since the original model was published, economists have created models of comparative advantage in the presence of frictions like shipping costs. Yet a fairly lengthy web page, prominent enough to be linked to from here, says nothing at all about the results of more realistic models. Why not?
My father, who is an anthropologist, is fond of refering to sociology as the “anthropology of white people”
I’ve always wondered how the distinction between anthropology and sociology could be sustained, in the absence of “primitive” people for anthropologists to study. Your father’s definition seems to be accurate in practise.
The charge is bogus - sociologists look at all cultures. Look at any decent soc dept and you see people studying Europe, Russia, Africa and China.
However, there are real differences in the social sciences. Consider the following:
- anthropology has a branch called “physical anthropology”, sociology has no such branch, heck, most sociologists refuse to acknowledge human beings are biological organisms
- anthropology deals much more intensely with meaning and language, this is less common, but not unheard of in sociology (see Garfinkle & co)
- sociologists routinely employ surveys, focus groups and do lab experiments; this is much less frequent in anthro
- anthropologists are much more concerned with the physical environment than sociologists
There are more differences. The fields are tightly related but are by no means identical in goals, theories and research methods.
If two groups of social scientists have the same subject matter, but different goals, theories and research methods I’d say they are best regarded as rival schools rather than as distinct disciplines.
Fair point and it is close to my own view of the social sciences. Right now, anthropology, sociology and economics all claim that they comprehensively study social behavior and group life. They all study the same sets of topics such as markets, families and states.
But I should employ an economic idea here: the disciplines aren’t completely rivals, they are also part of an intellectual division of labor. They don’t completely overlap and most social scientists would recognize that others do some valuable work that isn’t done in their own discipline.
Consider chemsitry and physics. The comparison raises interesting issues. They are both about atoms and molecules, but they aren’t considered rivals - it’s more like a division of labor. Chemists deal more with combinations of elements, rather than elements themselves. They also work on how such things are created. Physicists consider things like quarks and pure energy.
The state of physcial sciences is interesting - chemists and physicists rarely contradict each other. Social sciences routinely claim the other is completely wrong. It’s because social scientists study themselves at some level, so it is impossible to cede credibility to a scientific community whose view of human nature is so different than your own. But I should also note that social scientists tend to respect well done empirical work done by others, even if they disagree with the “why” of the analysis.
Sorry to veer overmuch off topic, but the real problem with comparative advantage as I’ve always understood is that in the real world economies need to diversified. In the Platonic World of Forms, the nation whose population takes to piano production ought specialize in it so fully as possible, but an actual country whose public policy encouraged it would be, upon the resurgence of Speed-Polka or collapse of the Acme company, totally fucked.
Sorry to veer overmuch off topic, but the real problem with comparative advantage as I’ve always understood is that in the real world economies need to diversified. In the Platonic World of Forms, the nation whose population takes to piano production ought specialize in it so fully as possible, but an actual country whose public policy encouraged it would be, upon the resurgence of Speed-Polka or collapse of the Acme company, totally fucked.
theogon, as you imply, this isn’t really a point about comparative advantage as opposed to alternative concepts (absolute advantage, competitive advantage etc) but about the desirability of specialisation. That said, I generally agree with you.
Andrew Abbott has written an interesting book entitled Chaos of Disciplines which is all about which differences between the various social sciences are real and which are mereley insisted upon by their respective practitioners.
As an anthropologist and teacher of introcutory courses, I’ve grappled with the issue of what distinguishes anthro and soc for a while now, especially when a student taking both has the temerity to ask what the difference is. Someone brought up physical anthro, which points to anthro’s 4-field approach (we also include archaeological and linguistic analysis) but that’s not all there is. Having done time in graduate sociology courses and been totally baffled by some of the ideas I heard expressed and by the way some otherwise-familiar ideas were formulated, I’d say there’s a much deeper distinction than “the anthropology of white people” gets at. Part of it is, as someone suggested, a matter of division of labour: sociologists tend to be interested primarily in social organization, while anthropologists tend to be interested more in abstract beliefs, ideas, and so on — though the “primarily” and “tend to” are crucial modifiers, as these elements aren’t nearly as neatly sorted out as our language suggests. The other is a matter of disciplinary history — sociologists and anthropologists draw on, for the most part, totally different intellectual histories, despite the last couple decades’ flogging of “interdisciplinarity”. Few sociologists read Boas, Malinowski, Cushing, Tax, Fallers; few anthropologists read Simmel, Goffman, errr… well, it’s hard for me even to name the 2nd-string sociologists, because I haven’t read them!
In a sense, we are like two societies, each of which has, of course, to live in and understand the same physical reality, but which have each developed a worldview that is not entirely commensurate with the other’s. While we may be describing the same phenomenon, our perspectives are different enough that often we might not even recognize the other’s description as relating to the same thing at all. There’s downsides to this, but there’s positives, too — every now and again, some interpid interdisciplinarist plunges forth and brings back new ideas, new perspectives, or new methodologies which can end up enriching both disciplines. Think of it as a diverse ideational genepool.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review