but even in Weber, the agnosticism about Platonic virtue still gives morals (or values or whatever) a causal weight that can't be reduced to economism. And that's true for many other theorists! Anyway, I'm reading Adam Seligman lately and a lot of it is really great but this is driving me nuts.

like if the good isn't *really* good then everything is just some iteration of individual preference. And I just don't buy it. I see how there are elements of "subjective expected utility" or what have you in Weber on down...

Is this an opening for sociology? My sense is we’re generally skeptical of universals as well, and for pretty good reasons. But I wonder if we could be a bit more cautiously optimistic, if nothing else to disprove the global ambition of homo economics.

With some exceptions, it seems cultural anthropologist are now skeptical of human universals and while most psychologists still have global ambitions, they’re not as focused on the social/interactive (except social psych obviously but they usually don’t focus on the meso, macro and diachronic).

And thank you!

I know, right???

Of course, schools *are* organizations and the Meyer et al Stanford School uses schools as a the lynchpin for thinking about institutionalized organizations, etc. But most studies of schools don't look like this and, interestingly, don't actually look at schools qua schools.

Gaslighting gaslighting is gaslighting

Ha! I do love theory and I love clever wordplay but I’m realizing o don’t actually love the two together, at least not the way Latour combines them. John Levi Martin pulls it off in a way that I still understand what the hell he’s arguing.

Wow! Congratulations!