Astrosociology.com/Essay Feedback

07/27/2004
(n/a)

Dr. Kieran Healy
(Assistant Professor of
Sociology; University of
Arizona)

#09

Critical Blog Commentary: Sociology's Final Frontier

Check out this weblog entry critical of astrosociology:

http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/000768.html

06/01/2004
(04/29/2004)

Dr. Albert A. Harrison
(Professor of Psychology;
University of California,
Davis)

#07

Issues to Consider in Establishing a New Subfield...

(Two-Way Feedback)

KEY:
JP = Jim Pass
(all other comments by Dr. Harrison)

================================================================

Hello Jim,

There has been a remarkable confluence of obligations and opportunities lately and the "light at the end of the tunnel" seems to recede indefinitely, but here are a few quick thoughts on the inaugural essay and "astrosociology" in general.

The essay itself is well organized and well written, but so far, we have seen only the first part.

First, I strongly favor the idea of astrosociology and trying to drum up enthusiasm in the sociological community. Occasionally, as in the case of Magorah Maruyama and in case of Diane Vaughan's book, I run into something by a sociologist, but there is much more done by political scientists, many of whom have sociological overtones. I especially recommend your looking at Howard McCurdy's work; he has done excellent essays on NASA as an organization and NASA's control of the public's view of space. Although his organizational analyses are excellent, my favorite is his book "SPACE AND THE AMERICAN IMAGINATION. In addition, there is some great work on space interest groups by Michael A. G. Michaud (he never completed his Ph.D. but he is excellent) as well as useful overviews of astronomy, astrobiology/SETI, and space exploration. One of his findings is that space groups fractionate and dissolve. To my knowledge I am one of the few psychologists (my background is in social psychology and at one time I actually passed PhD level tests in sociology) whose work has a sociological flavor. In both AFTER CONTACT and SPACEFARING, I treat organizational-level issues and explore the relationship of SETI and space exploration, respectively, to society at large. There are however some popular writers who discuss sociological phenomena (whether they know it or not) including Greg Klerkx.

Second, whereas it is fine and dandy to talk in terms of sectors and the interaction among sectors I myself see us at a particular point in evolution where we are shifting our gaze from the Earth to the stars. That is, as a result of a confluence of many factors (rapid advancements in astronomy, space exploration, ideas about cosmic evolution, concerns about a one planet species etc.), more and more people are thinking about "cosmic" issues. Stated another way, I see some of the changes as indeed "macro" and proceeding at the societal level. I guess to make a very practical point you might want to include more on how we are involved in social change that included reassessing our position in the universe.

(JP) Figure One in the Essay touches exactly on this point. It is a macro-level model that artificially separates a particular society into the astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors. The activities in each of the sectors affect the other, and these interactions contribute to social change. This model is meant, in part, to serve as a gauge that measures how important space-related activities are to cultural and social change in a society. The stronger the astrosocial sector, the closer toward a spacefaring nation the society. This model predicts that a spacefaring society is one possible successor to a post-industrial society. Then there is the concept of a "spacefaring species." These ideas are not yet well played out due to the fact that I have only completed Part One of the Essay. I am glad to see, however, that it has provoked important responses from such a well-respected social scientist.

Third, it is not really clear to me if you are writing specifically about space exploration or if you include astrobiology/SETI. The paper gets into astronomy and space travel but does not seem to make a strong statement about including the search for life beyond Earth. This needs to be made explicit. Remember, you are a sociologist, so you are less interested in the fate of the search than interest in the search, how it is carried out, and how various constituencies regard it. Once you get into astrobiology./SETI you will need a position on UFOs. Again, we are behavioral/social scientists, and it is appropriate that we deal with people's belief systems. However, as you know, anything smacking of UFOs can also portend professional disaster. There needs to be some upfront, strong statement in the essay on exactly which astrosociological phenomena are included and which are not.

(JP) Astrosociology, as I have proposed it, studies all astrosocial phenomena; that is, all social phenomena in which humans are related in some way with outer space. The concept of UFOs, whether reflecting reality or not, is embedded into the cultures of human beings. These ideas have social significance, not for their possible existence, but for their real effects on a particular society.

(JP-continued) Among other things, as you suggest, astrosociology studies (1) how the space sciences are carried out (organizational analysis), (2) their impact on society, (3) society's impact on the space sciences, and (4) the social and cultural change attributable at least in part to astrosocial phenomena. So, astrosociology involves, in part, the study of the influences of space exploration and the space sciences (e.g., astronomy, astrobiology, SETI). Any social behavior related to outer space in any way falls under the purview of astrosociology.

Fourth, one resource which I might have mentioned before is Harrison, Billingham et al. on the involvement of social scientists in SETI. Whether or not this is useful for the inaugural essay, it is important for you to read. It deals with the practical problems of getting high-level professionals involved in research that some might see as fringe or flaky.

The best was to get this is to contact the Foundation for the Future for a copy of Allen Tough's edited book, "When SETI Succeeds." I probably have a somewhat imperfect, but basically correct version, on my computer which I can send to you as an e-attachment assuming your computer can take a relatively large word document.

Fifth, some people in sociology will see no need for this. They will argue that there is no need to separate this out as a specific field. In other words, current sociology of organizations covers Vaughan's work, sociology of social movements covers space enthusiasts, and UFO groups can be understood in terms of deviance and cults, and so forth. That is, they will argue that whereas you are drawing attention to an interesting (and in my opinion important) topical area (or set of topical areas) there is nothing really "new" here. The essential thing, though, is that you are trying to involve sociologists in areas that are important right now and will become more important in the future.

(JP) You bring up an excellent point. I would argue that any subfield of sociology is an application of mainstream sociological analysis to a more specific subject matter. For example, the same can be said about deviance or sociology of religion. I think that the need for astrosociology is to bring together disparate sociologists and other social scientists into a single astrosociological community. This will allow for greater cooperation and collaboration, and thus the construction of a single, more comprehensive astrosociological literature. Those who prefer to study organizations as their subject matter, and happen to study an organization in the astrosocial sector, can continue to emphasize organizations, but they would have a much richer literature to draw upon if astrosociology existed as an accepted subfield. The study of astrosocial organizations is one of the five themes of astrosociology as presented in the paper.

Perhaps a good way to get this off the ground might be to chair a panel at a professional meeting. (I am not sure how the ASA does this sort of thing; but if it were psychology I might start with a regional meeting, such as the Western Psychological Association) which focuses on the intersection of sociology and space exploration, preferably very broadly defined to include astrobiology/SETI. The bias would be towards topics that relatively safe, for example, NASA as an organization, space advocacy groups as a social movement, living in isolation and confinement of space, and so on. Later on you could "free things up."

My sense is that your own reading on the topic has only recently begun, and that your efforts will become increasingly effective as you expand the literature based on which you draw. Unfortunately, at this point (after a quarter century in the field) the major result I get from reading one book is that I learn about two more books that I should read! In the meantime, you will have to give a lot of thought to "what's in" and "what's out" as you try to achieve a balance between sharpening a fresh new research area and remaining respectable.

(JP) When I first began this project in March of 2003, I was familiar with some of the literature, but not all of it, as you suggest. One of the problems I ran into was separating references that involve astrosociological issues from those that do not (even though they may discuss space-related topics). Two examples are the differentiation between journalism and astrosociology or between simple space advocacy and astrosociology. In this area, the astrosociological community would be invaluable in helping to shape a true "astrosociological literature." My approach to remaining respectable is to focus upon the social science materials as much as possible. This will be difficult at this early stage, and much of the other materials do, in fact, possess helpful ideas and arguments.

So far, the field seems to be dominated by anthropology, political scientists, and political scientists. It would be great to see more sociologists join the act! Again, as far as the essay is concerned, it needs to be more upfront on the content of astrosociology.

I hope you find these comments of use.

Sincerely,

Albert A. Harrison
Professor of Psychology

(JP) I want to thank Dr. Harrison for his supportive and constructive comments. Such contributions are vital to the establishment of astrosociology!

04/17/2004
(03/17-18/2004)

Dr. John Oliver
(Associate Professor;
Associate Chair/Undergraduate
Coordinator;
Department of Astronomy,
University of Florida)

(Project AST@RHO
http://astrho.astro.ufl
.edu;
see the night sky at http://concam.net/rh/)

#06

Defining a New Subfield…

(Two-Way Feedback)

KEY:
JO = Dr. John Oliver
JP = Jim Pass

================================================================

(JO) Astrosociology would be the sociology of stars. Perhaps you mean socio-astronomy.

(JP) Thank you for your comments. While there is no perfect terminology to cover what I intend for the scope of "astrosociology," the sociological study of the stars or the heavens seems like the best term. My argument is that while the literal meaning is not the main point, it does imply a larger purview of coverage. I considered socioastronomy, but my proposed sociological approach covers much more than the impact of astronomy, or any one space-related science. The term I selected purposely connotes a general, inclusive coverage of all "astrosocial" influences on society. I believe my term is apt for its intended purpose although I welcome your further comments in this regard.

(JO) This is similar to astroarchaeology and archaeoastronomy:

- archaeoastronomy: astronomical alignments and elements found in archaeology;
- astroarchaeology: a study of the ruins of long dead stars;

and thus:
- socioastronomy: astronomical aspects of sociology;
- astrosociology: sociology of stars.

(JP) As an astronomer and a sociologist, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this issue. I selected the term astrosociology largely because it emphasizes that it is a new sociological sub-discipline. It is similar to the term astrobiology which is defined as “the study of the origin, distribution and destiny of life in the universe,” according to NASA. “Biology of stars” is a literal interpretation, but it is not accurate literally.

(JP-continued) In contrast, the term socioastronomy emphasizes astronomy, but astronomy is not the main analytic science involved. This subfield does not attempt to study the astronomical aspects of sociology or the sociological aspects of astronomy (only). Astrosociology is based on sociological inquiry. Additionally, socio-astronomy is already established to study the sociology of astronomical publications (see, for example, http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/~heck/osabib.htm).

(JP-continued) Thank you again for your comments. Academic discourse is always refreshing even when there is disagreement, or perhaps even more so because of it. You have caused me to rethink my position about using astrosociology as my descriptive term for this new sociological subfield. However, I am even more convinced that this is the best term to describe a new subfield that takes a sociological perspective in examining the relationship between the influence of phenomena associated with the universe and the various societies on the planet Earth.

(J0) This makes sense ... you have convinced me.

[Note: I thank Dr. Oliver for challenging me to reevaluate my decision to use “astrosociology” as the name of this new subfield – JP].

04/13/2004
(03/29/2004)

William (Bill) Kornblum
(Professor of Sociology;
Graduate Center,
City University of
New York)

#05

Commentary Favorable Toward Establishing Astrosociology

Dear Jim -- I have read your essay and visited Astrosociology's very sophisticated web site, both with great interest. Before knowing how to advise you regarding the organization of a section in ASA devoted to research in this subject, I'd love to read some more concrete examples of what people consider Astrosociology. Stephen Weinberg's wonderful essay in the current March 22) New York Review of Books would qualify in my understanding of the term. It is entitled, "The Wrong Stuff" and is an argument against manned space flight. I find it a very persuasive essay. Another thinker is this area, Loren Eisely, asked us to consider the possibility that instead of there being infinite opportunities for life as we know it out in space, what we have here on earth may be unique in the universe. If that were to be the case, Eisely asks, what are the implications, and how would such a fact raise the stakes of our relationship to the environment of this planet?

I think an astrosociologist of a somewhat sociobiological bent might argue that homo sapiens are evolving in such a way that our spread out into the universe and beyond is inevitable. Astrosociology as a field seems to represent a fascination for extension of the human species beyond our planet. Personally, if pressed, I would tend to group myself among the critical astrosociologists. Our position would argue that before we advocate the extension of our species elsewhere in the universe, we first determine if we represent a parasitic disease form in our own biosphere.

At present most of the evidence would suggest that we are a harmful planetary bloom whose chances for early extinction are quite high. Despite the hubris of our ambitions at greening Mars and other distant orbs, about which we know almost nothing except that it would be extremely difficult and uncomfortable to live there, we humans are in the process of destroying the very basis of our own quite lovely lives. At the cosmic level, we are quickly destroying an almost infinitely thin layer of possibility, the only known particle of green life in the vast universe.

So I commend you, pioneer of astrosociology, for stimulating this discussion. Were I to become an astrosociologist, I would be concerned with seeing ourselves as astronauts who are already in a space capsule and must figure out, indeed, who have the destiny to figure out (or to fail to do so) how we are to flourish as a species and yet not so foul our nest that our brief but spectacular journey through the stars comes to naught.