Of Fractals and a (Research) Existential Crisis of Sorts

Abbott's usage of fractals in describing the concept of self similarity in social structures seems relatively easy to grasp when we consider gender roles and political structures. His breakdown of the realm of "women's" work within the predominantly male labor force or "men's" work in the traditionally female realm of housework, reflected my analysis of the way the world (traditionally) works, or even how political parties tend to be far more similar that they are different.

Oddly enough however, once you apply it to knowledge seeking in the social sciences, this application becomes, uneasy. I think much of my discomfort stems from my own construction of what knowledge is and what I have been previously (perhaps even loftily) socialized to think of what the pursuit of knowledge should look like. Becoming increasingly aware of how methodological entrenchment within the social science shapes the kind of inquiry we value, the two (researcher as occupation and researcher as vocation) seems almost incompatible in a sense. Arguably, Weber has done me the kind service of bursting any bubbles laden with images of fame and riches as an academic, yet charges us to pursue knowledge because we feel an almost spiritual connection to it (keeping in mind the challenges of having to jump over tons of hurdles to get to the research promised land). Abbott on the other hand, stirs up anxieties about how much time and energy are spent having death-matches over methodologies and schools of thought that in his estimation aren't really all that different.

Sure, the realm of academia is also socially constructed and highly institutionalized, but the nature of the fractal as an analogy describing the field (in this case) also has some indication of existing outside of the social (and therefore constructed) sphere. I have yet to make sense of what the implications of that would be.

What's frustrating is that despite our self-perceived enlightenment (whether real or imagined), the brute fact of the field we are preparing to enter requires us to make choices about where we will fit into these debates, and imposes limits within the socio-professional circle. In an old facebook post, I joked that a reality TV show should be made for academics. What would make it unique, in my estimation, from the Jersey Shores of the world is that feuding academics come for your paycheck and self worth.

"Social science is ostensibly the study of social life without value judgements"(199). I find it interesting that it is in the chapter speaking of politicians and moralists, that we find the more rigorous social science debates. It appears that much of the debate centers around infusing our moral values into the examination of social life. If we have a higher spiritual calling (if we're to take Weber's word for it) to research, perhaps it is a bastardization of that in a sense that entrenches us into the way we eventually define good knowledge (a value judgement) and inquiry, and the methods we employ to accomplish the pursuit of those aims.

As usual, the readings leave me with more questions than answers:

• What are the implications of the fractalization of the discipline on me/us choosing a methodology and how its received in the field?
• Furthermore, how am I to feel good as an excited young researcher charged with creating "new knowledge" if all my innovations are merely reinventing the wheel?
• Where would a student with these concerns fit into his depiction of the individual's relation to the self-similar social structure of academia?