Social science has become a bludgeon, the last and final weapon that progressives use to silence their enemies, which are reason, common sense, logic and observed reality.
As a Russell Sage post-graduate fellow in Social Science Writing at the University of Wisconsin Madison in the 1960s, I have watched in dismay--actually disgust--at how the once descriptive social and behavioral sciences have become politicized by the left to win arguments, distort reality and to demonstrate their supposed intellectual and moral superiority.
I was again reminded of it with the appearance and acceptance of blockbuster "research" by the American Psychological Association that declared "traditional masculinity" to be a danger.
I am inclined, as I have said before, that men tend to be more associated with violence, but then the politically inspired psychologists turned that sorry reality to support a broad scale attack on manhood by "progressives," gender paladins and extreme feminists.
Sure, the qualifications flow: "Oh, we're not talking about every man; just those who exhibit 'traditional masculinity,' such as' stoicism, aggression and competitiveness.'" As if those are, of themselves, menacing.
There's no use arguing with this baloney. Maybe they'd get the point if I insisted that "traditional feminism" is "problematic" because accommodation and other feminine traits are weakness. So, we need to educate girls to be cast them off.
In my despond, I came across a most-welcome and timely essay by Jackson Toby in the Wall Street Journal headlined, "Left-Wing Politics and the Decline of Sociology: Nathan Glazer came from an era when the field cared about describing the world, not changing it."
Glazer was one of the most prominent and respected sociologists of his time. As Toby wrote:
As a 93-year-old retired professor of sociology, I can remember the era when sociologists unanimously agreed with Glazer that our primary task was to describe as accurately as possible how societies worked. Sure, as good citizens, we wanted to change societies for the better. But we did not think our primary professional task was improving political institutions or helping people who were suffering. Understanding how and why people interacted with one another was difficult enough.
It's not at all difficult for so-called academics who have cast aside describing the interactions and uniqueness of people to propagandize their rigid ideological dicta of the kind that have corrupted so many institutions of higher learning.
Not by coincidence, the same affliction is rampant in what used to be called journalism. As a profession, its purpose was to describe and chronicle. It has been corrupted, just as the social sciences, and turned into bully pulpits for leftist causes.
Such journalists and academics have contributed mightily to the public's distrust. They are the seeds of the skepticism that brought us Donald Trump. Thanks a lot.