The Blob
Folks-
I’ve been trying to post throughout the day but with little avail so I jumped at the chance tonight. I don’t mean to step on our esteemed Abbott presenters. However, I will not be able to post before class tomorrow morning so I am throwing some thoughts out there in the spirit of the dialogue.
The Blob:
Although by the end of the book, I was greatly appreciative to Abbot for imposing order through the mathematical model of fractals onto the social sciences (a model which extends beyond the social sciences), Chaos of the Disciplines felt chaotic in its organization which initially made my trip to Fractal City a bit more like a walk through Oz meets Escher. Abbott strings together what feels like several disparate examples to demonstrate that the use of fractals can in fact provide a universally-applicable model for examining knowledge. I found this discussion not particularly relevant to me because, although Abbott demonstrates the cyclical and related natures of sociology and history, I would have appreciated one of those handy fractal charts to help me track the death of the labeling theory and why I should know this. So then, I slog some more through the blob, grateful that he has put the history of social construction in an appendix to HS1 and HS2, quant v. qual, and some of what I am sure is insider politics behind SSHA and ASA and which is older and which has more prestige. Ch 4 and Ch 5 remind a little of Weber’s Politics as a Vocation since it gives you some of the insight which is why I really enjoyed this book. However, to be honest, I felt that the discussion about the disciplines, the American university system compared to the German university system was a little out of left field. As unlikely as I think it would be, I was pleasantly surprised to see Abbott argue that change in the disciplines is possible if the clients, undergraduate students, and university administrations wanted to provide a different focus. I certainly did not feel like a client in undergrad. His analogy of the disciplines as being more like amoebas with pseudopodia blobbing around was vivid. Especially illustrative was his discussion about how “conquering disciplines” in a fractal model “ingest” elements of the conquered disciplines. Again, very blob-like.
He waits until almost the end of the books to tell us what his main argument by stating that:
“I begin by arguing that knowledge in social science falls into segmentary lineages. These lineages are generated by fractal distinctions, distinctions that tend to repeat within themselves, both hierarchically at a given time and in descent systems over time. Synchronically, the indeixcality of these distinctions encapsulates systems of knowledge in compact form but also generates endless misunderstanding. Diachonically, such distinctions give rise to the process of perpetual rediscovery that I have called fractal cycles” (147).
Although annoying, better late than never. Ultimately, like Searle’s social facts, Abbott argues through the fractal model that disciplines are relational, mutually agreed
I’ve been trying to post throughout the day but with little avail so I jumped at the chance tonight. I don’t mean to step on our esteemed Abbott presenters. However, I will not be able to post before class tomorrow morning so I am throwing some thoughts out there in the spirit of the dialogue.
The Blob:
Although by the end of the book, I was greatly appreciative to Abbot for imposing order through the mathematical model of fractals onto the social sciences (a model which extends beyond the social sciences), Chaos of the Disciplines felt chaotic in its organization which initially made my trip to Fractal City a bit more like a walk through Oz meets Escher. Abbott strings together what feels like several disparate examples to demonstrate that the use of fractals can in fact provide a universally-applicable model for examining knowledge. I found this discussion not particularly relevant to me because, although Abbott demonstrates the cyclical and related natures of sociology and history, I would have appreciated one of those handy fractal charts to help me track the death of the labeling theory and why I should know this. So then, I slog some more through the blob, grateful that he has put the history of social construction in an appendix to HS1 and HS2, quant v. qual, and some of what I am sure is insider politics behind SSHA and ASA and which is older and which has more prestige. Ch 4 and Ch 5 remind a little of Weber’s Politics as a Vocation since it gives you some of the insight which is why I really enjoyed this book. However, to be honest, I felt that the discussion about the disciplines, the American university system compared to the German university system was a little out of left field. As unlikely as I think it would be, I was pleasantly surprised to see Abbott argue that change in the disciplines is possible if the clients, undergraduate students, and university administrations wanted to provide a different focus. I certainly did not feel like a client in undergrad. His analogy of the disciplines as being more like amoebas with pseudopodia blobbing around was vivid. Especially illustrative was his discussion about how “conquering disciplines” in a fractal model “ingest” elements of the conquered disciplines. Again, very blob-like.
He waits until almost the end of the books to tell us what his main argument by stating that:
“I begin by arguing that knowledge in social science falls into segmentary lineages. These lineages are generated by fractal distinctions, distinctions that tend to repeat within themselves, both hierarchically at a given time and in descent systems over time. Synchronically, the indeixcality of these distinctions encapsulates systems of knowledge in compact form but also generates endless misunderstanding. Diachonically, such distinctions give rise to the process of perpetual rediscovery that I have called fractal cycles” (147).
Although annoying, better late than never. Ultimately, like Searle’s social facts, Abbott argues through the fractal model that disciplines are relational, mutually agreed
posted by Anonymous at 8:21 PM
4 Comments:
I didn't find Abbot as blobbish as Bea, and enjoyed his fractal analysis. It certinly seems compelling. I found myself wondering throughout, however, whether 1) this was just a repackaged dichotomous model and b) whether this model was a metaphor that he imposed on the world rather than discovered in it.
He didn't convince me that his fractal model is not a repackaging of yin-yang dichotomies, especially since it seems like his unending divisions proceed on dichotomous cutting. On p. 202, for example, he explains the dichotomy between social determinism and individual freedom, Politicians and Moralists, and the dichotomous dividing within each. I would have appreciated a more in-depth discussion of how the fractal model is distinct from dichotomizing since he seemed to devote a mere paragraph to this defense.
In the epilogue he finally acknoweldges the question of "whether the fractals are really there or whether I am simply imposing a fractal logic on whatever I study" (233). Unfortunately he decides this is not a topic that needs to be addressed in this book and thus saves if for another. As I read his fractal analyses I wondered whether one couldn't find, for example, a fibonacci effect or the Golden Mean analysis.
When one considers his concept of self-similarity in the replicative model of fractionalization Abbott's contribution is more evident, espcially in his discussion of morality. The idea of divisions reproducing self-similarity in each smaller unit has significant implications for inequality, hierarchy, etc. as he points out. Especially salient was his discussion of the boundaries between moral and immoral and the power of those who nestle close to that border to gain exponentially more than those who stay back from the edge (as we know from economics, the greater the risk, the greater the potential return). This "moral reparameterization" is a useful way to view the globalizing world, and especially some of the more contentious issues of society today, such as gay marriage and torture.
Although I am allergic to most graphs, figures, and other confusing “tools” that are so frequently utilized to visualize that which is much better understood by narrative text, Abbott actually had me at “Hello” and I was quite prepared to let him carry me off into the sunset.
In other words, I went into this book with a positive attitude. Maybe it’s because I respect anyone who admits that he usually has no idea what he’s arguing and that he always loses debates (I feel such kinship with losers), but I really did make an effort to appreciate his argument. And I think I did, sort of. While I agree with Bea that the book itself has a slightly chaotic feel to it, Abbott’s model seems very compelling, and even a superficial understanding of what he is arguing can probably be useful when trying to make sense of academia (if this is something you feel a need to do).
But by the time I get to page 202, where CCR calls for “a more in-depth discussion of how the fractal model is distinct from dichotomizing,” I am about ready to say “Goodbye” to dear Abbott. So, unlike CCR, I say: “No, please God, no in-depth discussion of how the fractal model is distinct from dichotomizing! Sweet Jesus, no!”
But, yes, Abbott does manage to draw attention to the mythological character of the “progress of science,” the belief that we are at the end of a linear journey of discovery. What is more, the implications of Abbott’s work is that the inter- and/or intra-discipline wars that drain academia of so much energy, are actually quite useless, as there seems to be more common ground than the combatants may think. While a puppy chasing its own tail is an adorable sight, academic communities doing the same thing is just pathetic.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I’m glad everyone else has sufficiently raised the points I myself noticed (chaos of abbott; fractal ambiguity; fractal innovation; fractal morality; losers kinship; interdisciplinarity; Kuhnian borrowing; the shape of knowledge).
I found myself an Abbott sympathizer. I think the fractal is a very helpful way to think about knowledge progression. After such long and arduous and confusing! post-structural battles against the linear model, finally! someone has offered a viable alternative.
There’s still one thing I’m wondering about: the disconnect, or rather, the disregard Abbott has for the “real world” with regards to academia and knowledge production. Why doesn’t he discuss the relationship or interaction between the social everyday world (of immigrants and warfare and welfare and underdevelopment and outsourcing) and the esoteric academic world (of fractals and theorems and debates and hypotheticals and dichotomy)? I would doubt that he wants to suggest that these two worlds develop largely independent of each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home