Abstract
Peter Baehr highly praises Berger’s contribution to sociology, and yet sharply criticises his claim that unmasking or debunking is he signature method of sociology. Baehr hold such method of enquiry to be dangerously corrosive and in tension with the humanist intentions of Berger. I largely agree with this critique, but I have doubts that a viable alternative could be developed within the framework of the social sciences. Thus, I would suggest that Berger was right in linking unmasking/debunking with the humanist enterprise, despite the negative implications highlighted by Baehr.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Baehr might want to maintain a sharper distinction between the two, allowing unmasking in political but not in scientific discourses. On the one hand, for any meaningful sociological enquiry, a relevant separation cannot be kept, while, on the other hand, unmasking is equally condemnable, largely for the same reasons, in politics as it is in social science.
As a corollary, perhaps debunking, which does not explain anything, could be considered less demeaning than unmasking.
Further Reading
Arendt. 2005. Understanding and Politics. In Essays in Understanding, 1930–1954: Formation, Exile, and Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken.
Baehr. 2002. Identifying the Unprecedented: Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, and the Critique of Sociology. American Sociological Review, 67(6), 804–31.
Baehr. 2010. Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, and the Social Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Baehr, & Gordon. 2012. Unmasking and Disclosure: Contrasting Modes for Understanding Religious and Other Beliefs. Journal of Sociology, 48(4), 380–396.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Parietti, G. Tear Your Mask, and Have it Too: A Reply to Peter Baehr. Soc 50, 391–394 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9683-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9683-8