The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
There's a failure often to understand people and the dynamics of societies and communities and that limits the potential of developing specialisms and their impact - whether it is humanities or science or anything else.
Politics especially. How many policies are formed that take no account of how society actually works?
I too wasn't happy with having to make the decision between science and humanities/arts. I'm an all rounder and did science because I was told to in terms of giving me better career prospects. I don't regret that for a minute since in physics especially I was able to lose myself in a whole new world.
But now I'm older, I find myself consciously developing other skills to create a better balance and a broader understanding of the world around me. Social policy, politics, photography and art - from a science trained brain. Both sides compliment each other well.
Unfotunately there are no reliable theories of how society actuallyworks.
The best the Left came up with was Critical Theory, which is a kind of ritualised distilled Marxism, inbred with semiotics and a lot of quoting.
It's completely useless for real social policy.
The absense of a real theory is why the Chicago jackasses were able to fill the vacuum with their neo-liberal monetarist nonsense. Which is why we're here now debunking the same old talking points about 'reform' when we could be doing something useful.
There have been some attempts to model policy statistically in an empirical and disinterested way, rather than making a priori assumptions about it. But the social sciences are still treated as humanities, not as sciences, which means real research isn't common.
If you want to look at social engineering, talk to the CIA. They seem to have a better idea of how to do it than anyone else at the moment - even if it's only on ad hoc Skinnerian basis, with crude aims manipulated by even cruder means.
Never being able to start from a blank slate makes the process really complicated and so many things intertwine. Psychology, sociology, economics, politics, anthropology, history... a narrow focus fails to make creative connections. So useless social policies.
But going back to the analogy of religion inspiring, banding people together, and politics. Blair's '97 election win came about partly because of that strength of feeling, being inspired, following a leader who promised us that things can only get better.
I think some of the lacklustre in the UK at the moment is because the 'left' have been in power for so long. It's much harder to maintain inspiration and motivation and a sense of belonging when you are actually running the country rather than rallying the crowds in opposition to the latest evils of a Tory Government.
Now the 'left' are no longer much distinguishable from the right and where are the critical masses to oppose this in an organised way? Who is rallying the troops from the left? Who or what am I meant to put my faith in now?
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 2 2 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 21 10 comments
by gmoke - Nov 12 6 comments
by Oui - Dec 96 comments
by Oui - Dec 88 comments
by Oui - Dec 717 comments
by Oui - Dec 54 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 32 comments
by Oui - Dec 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 22 comments
by Oui - Dec 26 comments
by Oui - Dec 112 comments
by Oui - Dec 14 comments
by Oui - Nov 306 comments
by Oui - Nov 289 comments
by Oui - Nov 276 comments
by gmoke - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 268 comments
by Oui - Nov 26
by Oui - Nov 2513 comments
by Oui - Nov 2318 comments
by Oui - Nov 22