Social Sciences as Sorcery,

By Stanislav Andreski

Book Overview

No Synopsis Available.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0140218165
• ISBN13: 9780140218169
• Release Date: January 1974
• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Length: 240 Pages
• Weight: 0.58 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Amazing work in modern Social Studies

I must say that this book is an enjoyable read. The author's points are well versed and the book is crafted with care. Unlike much reading in modern Social Sciences, Social Science as Sorcery does not rely upon a jungle of terminology. This book, in fact, is a rebuke and questioning of the direction in modern sociology (and more importantly atomistic positivism) and its method. As the title suggests, it pokes fun at the social science by showing how and why men err in their reasoning. Although Andreski is a serious author engaged with a serious subject, he employs the opposition arguments with humor and wit to show their arguments absurd - reduction ad absurdum. In fact, as one of his many points, Andreski states that a good sense of humanity is needed to engage in social studies. Andreski indignation is aimed towards the modern social science research and method. Andreski re-galvanizes some points brought out by C. Wright Mills in his famous "Sociological Imagination," where Mills analyzes and attacks modern university sociology (see especially chapter 11) with its unthinking reliance upon statistical gathering and hidden political manipulation/agenda. Yet, I found that Andreski's book is clearer and much more explicit on this point. In comparison, Mills seems to balk; and therefore is apprehensive and muddled in his indictment. As Andreski points out in the beginning of his book `much of what passes as scientific study of human behavior boils down to an equivalent of sorcery....' (p. 10) For example, Andreski, like Mills, attacks Talcott Parsons by demonstrating his verbosity (of which he presents his famous and hilarious formula (A/K - 1 =V); where A is Ambition, K is knowledge and V is verbose jargon; therefore "when knowledge exceeds the ambition V becomes negative; and negative verbiage amounts to conciseness." p. 82-83) and for adding practically nothing new to the ideas associated with sociology. In fact, Andreski feels that those who practice sociology are no longer men of the same stature as J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, David Ricardo, Augustus Comte, or others who were required to find their living outside the confines of teaching. (p.195) It is in this condemnation, where he finds his contemporaries inferior. However, Andreski doesn't throw the sociological baby out with his objections about the social science. He writes "Therefore, if he is honest, intelligent and has a wide range of knowledge, a sociologist or political scientist need suffer from no feelings of inferiority in regard to his colleagues in the natural sciences: and if they sneer at the shakiness of his edifice he can always answer: all right, if you are so much cleverer, why don't you try to say something about my subject that is new and can be backed by good arguments." (p. 199) Andreski's book is jam packed with gems like this that will help an astute and keen observer of the social science to avoid methodological pitfalls and focus attention to the

A hard hitting, honest, funny critique of social sciences

Andreski provides a refreshingly honest look at the social sciences. He offers evidence for his claims and offers humor throughout. Although the book was written over 30 years ago, it can easily be applied to today's academic world. The problems illuminated by Andreski only seem to have gotten worse. He is greatly concerned about the decline of "true" education and points out how terminology and pseudo science have come to dominate the social sciences. As a result, those in the profession are no longer making meaningful contributions to knowledge and this can be largely attributed to the dumbing down of the academy (and the exclusion of history and philosophy). Andreski doesn't condemn the use of statistics in the social sciences as a whole, but wants it to take its rightful place as a mere means to knowledge. Instead, too much emphasis is placed on using "math" and models, and meaningful contributions that do not fit this criteria are ignored. Furthermore, the statistical models are not being used as a complement to, but instead as a replacement for learning history and philosophy. Andreski offers humor throughout and is unusually effective in making his points. This is definitely a classic and should be mandatory reading for all in the social sciences.

Sorcery, Yes--But Can't It Be Science?

I first read this book in 1976 when I taught anthropology ... and I've reread it so often that my copy is falling apart--had to order a more intact copy--which will probably also fall apart in time.What an epiphany it was--and still is--to read it! Andreski confirmed all the suspicions I had about anthropology and the other social science from my graduate years on. The field is unjustifiably overspecialized, it covers the same ideas and materials that the classics (Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Spencer) presented adequately more than a century ago(albeit in changed jargon), and a lot of cant and methodological mysticism hide--essentially--that many researchers, if not most, have nothing new to say.This is not to deny that much is out there that is original and advances the fields, and there lies an issue: I think Andreski is overpessimistic in the prospects of social science as "hard" science. His coverage of the dilemma that social sciences face--volitional humans with minds of their own--is well taken, as is his point about the dilemmas physicists and chemists would face if atoms and molecules all of a sudden became volitional entities. Even so, we can push diversity and unpredictability of behavior too far. Humans are of one species with the same brain structure, the same capacity for language and culture, the same potential for tool use--and despite the diversity in the world's cultures, there are many universals--from incest tabus among primary kin to susceptiblity to propaganda. It seems to me that more attention needs to be focused on the commonalities of human populations, and that is the major disagreement I would have with Andreski.Nonetheless, I rate the book as a five; reasonable people can disagree and still see the strengths in each others' work.

Social Sciences as Sorcery

I and my fellow graduate students perched to take our master's degree comprehensive and Ph.D. qualifying Eeaminations at UCSB were required to read this book, following two years of graduate study and prior to further study when the book was first released. I still remember it after over 25 years speaking to its staying power and the author's message. At the time, the book was a wake-up call for all social scientist to be versed in the classics, humanities and the sciences before endeavoring to add to the wealth of human knowledge. Dr. Andreski warned against doing research and using new jargon to repeat what had already been studied or discovered and reported, especially if the original work had been done by the Greek philosopher/scientists. It is a humbling book to read particularly at that time in one's life. I recall it as straightforward and direct to the point or rather points. I would recommend it to anyone interests in philosophy and social science or preparing to continue their education in these areas. I thank the faculty who had the foresight to mandate we read this book. The book puts one's own work and thought into a larger gloval and historical perspective. Dr. Andreski's work reminds us that society is built on those who came before us and who were creative with fewer resources and databases. I like this book for four reasons: 1) it reinforced my appreciation of a fine liberal arts education; 2) it appealed to my sense of irony; 3) it provided me with official approval to believe enough in, yet laugh at, both myself and my profession and others; 4)in today's terminology, it addresses the importance of thinking outside the box. This is not a book for those who take themselves so seriously or are so insecure that they cannot see the irony or accept the humor within their lives and their careers.