Who knows who and what are SSFers? this discussion continue here

Ali Tayefi wrote: It's so ambiguous! I saw the "working group of SSF" but I don't understand what we want to do!? May be my English language is poor or the Social nature is a young concept! Ok we can test a new channel to do some thing whether theory or practice ones. But there is still a question that Rodney proposed: what and who is Sociologist without borders? These are some drafts to answer that:

Theoretical approach (internal-subjective function). SSF ers is the academic and critical assembly which their core duties are critic any conservative theories and schools in the sociology and ever social theory and they debate many discussion and establish some courses to teach radical and critical sociology for their audiences.
Trade union approach (internal-objective function). SSF ers are sociologists who want to defend their colleagues in the world without any borders from geographical, national, political and working or studying aspect to religious, ethnic, class status and gender division ones! This approach is now under force by the resolution and other ways.
Social alliances approach (external-subjective function). We all SSF ers, as I understand that, have come together for some common values: resistance against neo-liberal globalization, peace, social justice between people, and strengthening of civil society in front of government and etc. Therefore our duty has value grounds and biases and I think it is inevitable. In the globalization process, SSF and other without borders are the unavoidable reflexive and trans-borders organizations which can alliance with other TBOs in the other disciplines and fields.
Social issues approach (external-objective function). SSF ers are sociologists who want to walking and watching on the borders to propound and beware all international ORGs and NGOs about social issues and problems whether at present or in future such as massacre (Darfur), hunger people, women and children smuggling, discrimination against immigrants, minorities, militant abuse of children, oppression of intellectuals and freedom activists, censorship, digital abusing and etc. In this approach we can use some Medias to broadcasting our protest and warning or recalling to alliance.

In finally, I think we can get all of above orientations, but as Rodney told we are drop, although we can ripple ocean, and we must be preference them. As I want to prefer are 2 and 4 !

The first time I heard about Social Natures was when a Portuguese colleague, José Luís Casanova, presented his PhD dissertation. (the book is in Portuguese language). He wrote about his experience of asking, in a questionnaire about social structures (class structures) in Portugal, about how people feel about pro-activity as freedom and about solidarity as repugnance to inequality. The results showed that these two variables are more discriminator of social representations than other common variables (property, scholar and professional qualifications, situation on the job market, for instance).

He named this composite social indicator (mixed pro-active and repugnance to inequality) social orientations (in number of four, taking both positive variables, both negative variables and in the middle those who respond positive only one – or another – of the two variables). And he said that social orientation is part (a auto-representational part) of social natures, meaning, if I take it right, that below this modern (or not) social orientations it stays the natural impulse from every human to live in society with others, imitating patterns of behaviour and values, more or less coherent. APD

1. What make us think it's useful to discuss with each other, as we are doing?

2. What are the issues we disagree?

a) We feel apart mainstream sociology because sociology cannot support any more the non ideological scientific program sociology promises to develop.

When we lived the Cold War, sociologists do not want to take a party between the real communism and the capitalism: we were the ideological support for in between Social State, bargaining successfully our jobs as a profession and as schools for the professionals this kind of state needed. If we understand ideology as the tension between communism and capitalism, sociology is out of this Cold War discussion: sociologists are not this kind of ideologists. We are professionals. Our professional ideology is against social violence, hoping social-democracy can do the pacification job.

b) As professionals we are specialized. We know better what society is and we want to serve it in our special way. This way is not psychological, economical, political. Our special way is cultural, linked to the way people think and acknowledge other people and institutions (look at the main stream quantitative methods by inquiry). Sociology is more concerned with moral issues (as human rights and solidarity) than other social disciplines.

c) Neo liberalism does not accept society as something that is real. Max Weber refers to individual as the materialist support for society relations. And his perspective has been used by mainstream sociology to follow near economics neo-classic scientific perspective, which takes for real and human essence the "homo economicus", as if all other flesh and blood realities were consequences of "rational behaviour for interests". That is why now-a-day mainstream sociology prefers to merge Marx-Weber theories and forget Durkheim´s. It fits better with dominant powers.

d) SSFers (probably: help on this) feel that social-democracy (not capitalism, nor communism), where it exists, is not able to stay out of global ideological fights. Sociologists need to discuss ideology, too. Our privileged field is morals as a scientific approach. We do not want to accept mainstream western morals as our reference.

a) Are we looking for an epistemological solution for our problems? Some of us think yes (for instance, those who are defensive to any discussion, searching for capitalist or western imperialistic symptoms on their own sociological speeches). I think no. All we need is to fight for sociological freedom. I mean, freedom from old alliances not effective any more (since Social State does not improve social lives any more); freedom from main stream sociologists who are defensive, afraid that any wrong move (for instance, our moves) can stop opportunities for more jobs and schools; freedom from magical responsibilities of saving the world, some of us like to think we have.

b) Society exists, all right, each time more complex and knowledge needing. Moral is, more than ever, a first range social and ethical problem. Sociology (Durkheim and Marx inspired sociologies in special) has experience on that field. People need to know how to read and fight for Human Rights and for new and efficient forms of worldwide solidarity. Sociology should develop the multiparadigmatic approach we learned at school, as professionals. We need, as a profession, to adapt to the sociological global market and compete with psychologists, economists, consulting politics. My proposal is to find allies on medical professionals and jurists, because they need our expertise to face their new professional and institutional problems and we can benefit from their knowledge and from shearing their professional's fields.

APD