Immutable truth

Abstract: Lesotho's postcolonial state land-reform project has failed to produce intended outcomes. Mainstream explanation points to the antagonism of customary chiefs to state-sponsored reforms, because these were meant to curtail their power over land. First mooted in 1973, when the first land-tenure reforms were attempted, this explanation has been uncritically accepted as immutable truth by a majority of academic commentators and policymakers in Lesotho and elsewhere. I argue in this paper that this explanation is a fable, superficial and shallow, and that the failure of the postcolonial Lesotho land-reform project can fruitfully be explained by reference to the ideology of the regime that assumed state power at independence in 1966, and not by simplistic reference to the antagonism of customary chiefs per se.

Abstract: The article reports that cognitive scientists have gathered empirical evidence to see how ordinary people actually think about relativism versus immutable truth. It mentions that as political polarization grows, arguing to win is seemingly a more popular style of discourse than arguing to learn, especially in online forums such as social networking service Facebook and Twitter.

Abstract: Sociologists in the main define their field as the scientific or systematic study of human groups, human societies, or human social behavior, a formulation that does not imply any spatial limit upon its scope. In practice, most sociological studies are conducted within one society, and fezv theoretical propositions can find support in research results based on comparable data from many societies. To counter such undesirable parochialism, this paper calls urgently for recognition of the need for much more emphasis on cross-societal comparative research and proposes ways in which such an expansion can be facilitated. Science . . . is not, as is sometimes thought, a way of building a solid indestructible body of immutable truth, fact laid precisely upon fact in the manner of twigs in an anthill. Science is not like this at all: it keeps changing, shifting, revising, discovering that it was wrong and then heaving itself explosively apart to redesign everything. It is a living thing, a celebration of human fallibility (Thomas, 1). American sociologists seem everlastingly to conduct probing and frequently skeptical evaluations of the sociological enterprise. In private conversations, in their own courses, and in print they are wont to call into question even the most sacred foundations of our discipline. Mayhew's recent charge that "American sociologists are generally unfamiliar with a sociological apprehension of social phenomena" because the field "has been dominated by an individualist, psychologistic perspective" (335) is a good case in point. My own purpose is to direct attention to what I regard as a serious shortcoming of sociology, to point to the available means of overcoming the problem, and to propose ways to facilitate the movement in what I see as the desirable direction. The defect to which I refer is parochialism. My awareness of this situation began over 15 years ago soon after I became a visiting professor in *Presidential address delivered at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, 1981; a revised version of a lecture presented at Auburn University on May 2, 1979. I am indebted to faculty members at Auburn and to David W. Coombs, John V. D. Saunders, and Marilyn Emplaincourt for helpful comments and suggestions. I 1981 The University of North Carolina Press. 0037-7732/81/020416-31$01.60