2 posts tagged “sociology”
My paramount social grievance as of late is when people preface their arguments with self-aggrandizing qualifications in order to elevate their perceived authority. This formulaic approach can be manifested by the logic, "As somebody who [is an expert at X], I [think Y]."
For example (via Google):
- "As somebody who loves language, I am sincerely grateful to him for reintroducing that marvellous [sic] word into common usage."
- "As somebody who loves baseball, I wish we could put this issue to bed once and for all: Pete Rose should never, ever, ever be allowed into the Hall Of Fame."
- "As somebody who enjoys writing, I found Upadhyay's comments illuminating and encouraging."
- "As somebody who enjoys watching politics, I’d rather see a more interesting race."
- "As somebody who hates shaving with a vengeance, I can sort of understand why some people have beards."
I'm not quite sure why this has dominated my awareness recently. And I'm not entirely confident I've never done it, myself. Perhaps it's just a matter of repetition in the content I've been reading that's driving nails through my eyeballs. But the force and immediacy with which it inspires my fists of rage has been rather interesting to experience. It has outweighed my other grammar-nazi pet peeves (e.g. "begs the question," "alot," "your") with a velocity none have enjoyed before.
Phil Zuckerman’s “Invitation to the Sociology of Religion” is an introductory text designed to be built upon with future readings. Because of this, his book is not very challenging in its contents or composition, nor offers much opportunity for provocative thought with its claims and arguments; rather, the book serves as a high-level overview of “the ways in which religion is affected by various aspects of society and, simultaneously, the ways in which various aspects of society are in turn affected by religion” (15). While Zuckerman might have purposefully designed this piece to be inviting in its straightforwardness, I found the efficacy of his simplicity lost in the book’s verbosity.
While Zuckerman’s statements are neither incorrect nor invalid, the author’s writing is both garrulous and distracting. In some ways, I’m almost impressed at Zuckerman’s ability to fill 129 pages full of text that likely could have been communicated effectively in a fraction of that length. Looking at the table of contents, I would be surprised if this entire book could not be compressed to a half-dozen PowerPoint slides. By that, I mean that Zuckerman’s “main points” are often drowned within a vast sea of ambling anecdotes and loquacious tales (much like this post, no?). Example: At the top of page 51, five pages into Chapter 3, Zuckerman writes “All of this can be summed up as follows: we generally acquire and absorb our religion from other people, usually those to whom we are personally close or are significantly attached.” Despite his one-sentance summation, the author continues for an additional 10 pages. Although I agree with Zuckerman’s perceptions on the social influences on religion, I found his composition to be wearisome.
