Is Sociology A Stage Yellow Subject?

[Rilles]

Just found it fascinating, Im studying it now and alot of the talk about looking at things from different perspectives and mixing ideas from psychology, economics and historical context into a pot of gumbo seems very holistic to me. Any of you studied it professionally? What do you think?

Edited July 27, 2020 by Rilles

[Leo Gura]

Green+

[Rilles]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Green+

I seem to find it hard to see that Green can be pretty relativistic and multi-disciplinary too! Green plus! Love it 

[Artsu]

It's concerned with humanity, so basically exists in the realms where focusing on humanity is key. This means it doesn't get into transpersonal thinking very much so I don't think it's yellow. So I'd put it at green.

I'll be studying it myself soon, so I will give a better answer at a later time, but I'm not expecting anything too high up in thinking.

[Rilles]

58 minutes ago, Artsu said:

It's concerned with humanity, so basically exists in the realms where focusing on humanity is key. This means it doesn't get into transpersonal thinking very much so I don't think it's yellow. So I'd put it at green.

I'll be studying it myself soon, so I will give a better answer at a later time, but I'm not expecting anything too high up in thinking.

Ah, I see! Still a really great subject! 

[remember]

5 hours ago, Rilles said:

I seem to find it hard to see that Green can be pretty relativistic and multi-disciplinary too! Green plus! Love it 

sociology can have a systemic relativistic view but doesn’t actually go into the personal so much - so @Artsu it’s the opposite it’s more transpersonal than individual or personal. green either gets stuck in the personal orange/green or in the systemic green/yellow which is only a definition of the component and way green manifests. in some sense yellow transcends into a more active form of less theory and a more practical integrative approach - yellow in some sense also synchronizes the personal with the systemic.

[soos_mite_ah]

Yes I have taken a couple of sociology classes. The classes I have taken does take an approach that analyzes numerous systems and how they all interact with one another. I have also recognized the holistic nature of it as well. However, because sociology focuses a lot on the workings of the collective, I can see how it can also have a lot of green leanings to it (not so much turquoise since it doesn't go into mystical experiences). 

I think to take a  more yellow approach to sociology is also studying a bit of psychology since that has more of an individualistic twist to it. Both subjects have a lot of parallels and it's interesting to see how patterns in a collective also reflect back to patterns in individual minds and how those minds work. 

I'd put sociology at green/ yellow because it depends how you apply what you learned, the specific subjects that you are delving into etc. 

[JosephKnecht]

Sociology attempts to deconstruct Freud's super-ego. In that sense, its the science that is a precursor to enlightenment. 

Biology deconstructs the id.  

Psychology deconstructs the ego.

Sociology deconstructs the super-ego. 

[Ulax]

On 27/07/2020 at 0:41 PM, Leo Gura said:

Green+

I understand this post is from a while ago.

However, @Leo Gura would you mind elaborating on why you class sociology as 'Green+'.

I've always understood green to be peace and lovey, but without the robust, systemic understandings of how to actually get the love and peace they want in the world. The latter being stage yellow-esque. However, to my mind, sociology is the study of systems.

If you still think sociology is not stage yellow, then please may you say why.

[puporing]

Depends on the approach, can be green/yellow. How much does someone attempt to understand and balance multiple sides/the complexity of the issue/having nuance/new information vs having a one-tracked mindset with every issue (eg, some social cause they believe in) and try to fit everything into that theory. Maybe it's not common yet to find authors/advocates who try to balance multiple sides because those tend not to get 'popularized', but it doesn't mean people who study it currently or policy makers for example don't try/attempt to so it totally depends on how you're using it. The field itself like anything is capable of moving towards Yellow just like other "fields".

Edited February 20, 2022 by puporing

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Ulax said:

I understand this post is from a while ago.

However, @Leo Gura would you mind elaborating on why you class sociology as 'Green+'.

I've always understood green to be peace and lovey, but without the robust, systemic understandings of how to actually get the love and peace they want in the world. The latter being stage yellow-esque. However, to my mind, sociology is the study of systems.

If you still think sociology is not stage yellow, then please may you say why.

It focuses on context awareness, which starts becoming prominent at Green: the humans being is understood not by its individual qualities alone but by its relations to contextual factors (economic, social, cultural etc.). However, there is limited construct awareness (but generally higher than most of the hard sciences): in fact, contextual approaches were discovered by critiquing the individualistic constructs of the status quo (e.g. critical psychology), but it doesn't go much further than that. Construct awareness rises the more you dive into metaphysics and epistemology, which happens more in fields like philosophy/history of science, philosophy of mind and cognitive science.

In other words, it's true that sociology is the study of systems, but it focuses more on real systems (e.g. social systems) rather than abstract systems (e.g. the structure, function and origin of concepts, models, theories, paradigms etc.), thus it's mostly context awareness but less construct awareness. On the other hand, one reason why for example SD is Yellow is because it more directly explains the relationship between real systems (social systems, individual development) and abstract systems (worldviews, ideology) on a meta-theoretical level (grand narratives).

[Ulax]

@Carl-Richard

On 20/02/2022 at 1:50 PM, Carl-Richard said:

It focuses on context awareness, which starts becoming prominent at Green: the humans being is understood not by its individual qualities alone but by its relations to contextual factors (economic, social, cultural etc.). However, there is limited construct awareness (but generally higher than most of the hard sciences): in fact, contextual approaches were discovered by critiquing the individualistic constructs of the status quo (e.g. critical psychology), but it doesn't go much further than that. Construct awareness rises the more you dive into metaphysics and epistemology, which happens more in fields like philosophy/history of science, philosophy of mind and cognitive science.

In other words, it's true that sociology is the study of systems, but it focuses more on real systems (e.g. social systems) rather than abstract systems (e.g. the structure, function and origin of concepts, models, theories, paradigms etc.), thus it's mostly context awareness but less construct awareness. On the other hand, one reason why for example SD is Yellow is because it more directly explains the relationship between real systems (social systems, individual development) and abstract systems (worldviews, ideology) on a meta-theoretical level (grand narratives).

  Is there a discipline you'd recommend that is alike sociology but which has more construct awareness?

Also, did you get your views re construct awareness and Spiral dynamics from a certain book? If so, would you be willing to recommend it?

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Ulax said:

@Carl-Richard

  Is there a discipline you'd recommend that is alike sociology but which has more construct awareness?

Critical Theory and its offshots, especially Critical Psychology.

 

1 hour ago, Ulax said:

Also, did you get your views re construct awareness and Spiral dynamics from a certain book? If so, would you be willing to recommend it?

The concepts of construct and context awareness I got from Cook-Greuter's Ego developmental model, as well as from reading about systemic communication theory (Bateson) and community psychology (Bronfenbrenner, Sameroff, etc.). I also wrote a short university thesis on the role of systems thinking in community psychology, and I incorporated those concepts there. There were a few books involved, but the only English one was "Community Psychology: In Pursuit of Liberation and Well-Being".

[Ulax]

@Carl-Richard Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

[Ulax]

On 20/02/2022 at 1:50 PM, Carl-Richard said:

It focuses on context awareness, which starts becoming prominent at Green: the humans being is understood not by its individual qualities alone but by its relations to contextual factors (economic, social, cultural etc.). However, there is limited construct awareness (but generally higher than most of the hard sciences): in fact, contextual approaches were discovered by critiquing the individualistic constructs of the status quo (e.g. critical psychology), but it doesn't go much further than that. Construct awareness rises the more you dive into metaphysics and epistemology, which happens more in fields like philosophy/history of science, philosophy of mind and cognitive science.

In other words, it's true that sociology is the study of systems, but it focuses more on real systems (e.g. social systems) rather than abstract systems (e.g. the structure, function and origin of concepts, models, theories, paradigms etc.), thus it's mostly context awareness but less construct awareness. On the other hand, one reason why for example SD is Yellow is because it more directly explains the relationship between real systems (social systems, individual development) and abstract systems (worldviews, ideology) on a meta-theoretical level (grand narratives).

@Carl-Richard Hi again, I'd be grateful to hear your perspective once more.

Would i be right in thinking that sociology often doesn't take into account that they are only dealing with a sub system which is a part of a larger system? Hence, they are looking for win-win solutions, rather than win-win-win solutions?

[Fleetinglife]

On 9/28/2022 at 11:58 AM, Ulax said:

Would i be right in thinking that sociology often doesn't take into account that they are only dealing with a sub system which is a part of a larger system? Hence, they are looking for win-win solutions, rather than win-win-win solutions?

I am not, and can't claim to be the best authoritative figure on this, since I pretty much got stuck basically halfway through my studies in the scientific field on the faculty here where I am from because I have failed and flunked on my tempo of studying enough and giving enough exams yearly for in order to have been basically by this time, after 5 years, getting an actual undergraduate degree in the field and I am now basically at a near point in the future where I am looking towards redirecting and re-specializing with the exams I have passed in the near future (about ideally a year from now) into a social work specialized private college with the savings I would have from inheriting an apartment from my grandad and splitting its sale here with the rest of my family (petty bourgeoisie stuff essentially).

But, however, I feel I am kind of obliged by dedicating a part of my earthly time and human life in the past to dipping my toe in some parts, more in-depth than most at some points and elements and aspects of the field, and understanding some aspects of it to say this in the way I best can and can muster cohesive, concise and accurate thought, wording and phrasing to explain it, in the most straightforward and simplest way possible, from my experience from it and point of view on it and the world that I acquired from it, from briefly having the chance in engaging with it directly and empirically as a subject and field, and by having a chance to study it more in-depth in some parts, periods of time in my life and aspects of it as a scientific field and discipline in itself, the following about it, again from my point of view and experience inferred from engaging with on a bit longer of a basis (a phase of my life or a life phase of mine if you will):

1. Sociology is, as one of its most key and fundamental epistemic methodological aspects and foundations, a scientific field seeking to explain and interpret some phenomena in the world that concern the study and exploration of society in itself as phenomena, as a whole thing or being, and the quality and the form of its dependency on and interrelationships with other phenomena in the world, a very scientifically multi-disciplinary field that inter-laps with many different other fields of study and uses, re-formulates and re-contextualizes insights gathered in those fields and integrates it and incorporates into its own field and uses them as an added extra layer of the explanatory power of its own formulated theories on phenomena that concern and impact its own field of study, mainly society as a whole as a thing, reality and being.

So one can maybe say that in this aspect that sociology is by its very nature as a scientific discipline, field, and science of society on its own, is a very comparativistically, contextually, and relativistically oriented kind of science, that uses empirical findings and theories from other scientific fields, disciplines, and branches to incorporate, reimagine, reformulate and re-integrate them into its own field of study about society giving its own unique theoretical and methodological slant on whatever topic or phenomena that concern human society in any way it wants to approach, explain and give a theoretical view for.

And it's not only limited to the field of ''proper and hard'' sciences in doing this, but it also does this and takes this approach to also many other fields and can use insights gathered from more interpretative heavy fields of history, anthropology, philology, religiology and philosophy for example, that it can then use to apply in explaining society as a whole or some aspect of it or close phenomena relating to it (for example ecology as well).

In this way, it truly becomes a multi-disciplinary, inter-relational, and comparativistically intensive field of study that uses findings, insights, and/or theories gathered from other fields to enrich its own or reformulate and re-explore them in the wider social whole and/or social concerning prism or using theories and concepts from of its own scientific corpus to form a brand new or unique theoretical or methodological basis.

One of the main points and things about, as one of the female assistants and lecturers, summed it up well and said I think, in one of the first, first-year introductory courses on sociology relating to the course that was about an introduction to the basic concepts, theories, and apparatuses used and about the philosophy of science that also concerns sociology as a unique, particular kind of science, scientific field, and discipline, is that unlike most other scientific disciplines and fields it doesn't have a single dominant or prescribes to a single, overarching, overrepresented scientific paradigm in the discipline and that guides and directs the exploration of its field of study and it's assumptions at some point, before it is maybe revolutionized, transcended and replaced by another more accurate or epistemic one or evolved into another one from its previous basis and base assumptions, but that it in its field of interest and exploration, society, has always had multiple differing, competing, inter-lapping. interlaying and comparative ones from the start of its conception as a unique scientific field and discipline to its present-day mostly and at most times. 

That's the first part of what I wrote concerning my experiences and interpretations of sociology as a scientific field that I studied and engaged with, that I felt can maybe help and answer a part of your question from a brief albeit enriching and useful direct experience point of view. If this personal input seems at any point semi-valid on that basis and useful in its explanation and answering 

I planned on giving my answer and personal interpretative response to another part and aspects of your posed question and something as well that some other users mentioned here about the field itself from the perspective, of some of them from within it or of coming from different fields in looking at it and approaching it in some aspects in their answers, interpretations, and responses to your question, that I am of course not trying to overgeneralize or overelativize in saying they were neither or either right, wrong or completely straight, correct and fully on point in their general assessments and interpretations of it, even from a sense of maybe using more advanced or whole theoretical explanatory models in their eyes when attempting to analyze it and narrow it down to its core and basis and the ways in which it is mostly or in a lot of cases being used, advocated or interpreted in as a scientific field and the way it is often overgeneralizingly being represented, misrepresented or mostly externally painted as how it chooses to approach and study it's field of interest, mainly human society and almost anything and everything of all the aspects that concern it or impact it in some ways as phenomena in observable reality.

Hope I wasn't being too unclear or confusing here with you with what I was trying to communicate or get at here, and that some of my current and up until this point answers here proved somewhat useful and at least elucidating to a point to you here on the topic you posed your question for and about  Which of course I am not trying to pretend are definitive or a good solid source of authority given my current aforementioned past background and experience with it up until this point in my life 

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Fleetinglife

[Raze]

On 7/27/2020 at 4:23 AM, Rilles said:

Just found it fascinating, Im studying it now and alot of the talk about looking at things from different perspectives and mixing ideas from psychology, economics and historical context into a pot of gumbo seems very holistic to me. Any of you studied it professionally? What do you think?

Currently it is stage green https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

[Hatfort]

Orange doesn't get it, paints sociology as not tangible. Well, it is not in mathematical terms, I guess. That's a very limited way of thinking, which puts orange below green and yellow, generally speaking. Numbers are awesome, but we're not numbers.