Sociology presupposes an ontology and ontology has sociological implications

Adam, the closest thing I can think of to such a study would be Bourdieu’s Homo Academicus, which wouldn’t be specific to academic theology. I wasn’t referring to ethnographies of academic theologians– which I agree would be very interesting –but ethnographies of various religious populations. larvalsubjects said this on May 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Clarity is your forte and deserves a clap. But, as you so well understand, the words, Sociology and Ontology don’t gel. Hope to see the canvas spread. Tusar N. Mohapatra said this on May 1st, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Thanks Tusar. Perhaps you could say a bit more as to why you believe ontology and sociology don’t gel. My view would be that sociology presupposes an ontology and ontology has sociological implications. The ontological claims that I make are

1) that only individuals exist (no essences), and

2) all individuals are processes or events.

This makes a difference as to how you study social formations. If there are no essences, for instance, than it makes no sense to talk about the one true essence of Christianity and to evaluate various existing Christian practices according to this transcendent criteria. Rather, there are only these various groups and how they understand themselves. larvalsubjects said this on May 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pm

You have pointed out that “sociology presupposes an ontology” which implies the primacy of ontology. Your “ontology of assemblages” in the present skeletal form leaves scope for hundreds of questions, and hence the disagreements. If you are proposing a new ontology devoid of sedimentation then a lot of fleshing out would be necessary. Or if it is a synthetic one then you will have to spell out the sources. In this context, may I reproduce what you wrote a few days back:

[Much of my thought and writing lately has been an attempt to speak honestly about what I value and am committed to. That is, I’ve tried to imagine a writing that might transform how I feel or relate to the world, or a writing that might be addressed to a close friend or loved one, summing up what I feel to be of particular value and truth. It seems to me that theory as it is often practiced today is split between a surface theory that is published and a shadow theory that the theorist genuinely advocates. For instance, a theorist might publicly claim that all is signifiers and then go to the doctor to get checked for cancer. There seems to be a disadequation between what the theorist proclaims and what he really advocates. This is a banal and unfair example. I want form of thought that is more honest and true to how I actually encounter the world.] Tusar N. Mohapatra said this on May 2nd, 2007 at 3:46 am