In the most idealistic sense, sociologists are equal part scientist and artist.

The science as form of art sentiment is so common in academia that its now clich. But of course, science is definitively not art; its science. Art is ideologically distinct from science in that it cannot separate the art from the artist, whereas the ideal of objective science is to separate the scientist from the science. Art is a gift, whereas science is a product. The only difference is found in the intentions of the creator. Where scientists are thought of as laborers, artists are martyrs. And while scientists may consider themselves martyrs, they are foremost bounded to an exogenous amoral rationality; a condition that is not necessary for the artist. This is precisely the point where sociology and art converge. The sociologist may freely express the same active sense of morality that an artist contributes. In this way, the sociologist can be a martyr just as the artist is, but without the overt sense of self-gratification and vanity that is required by artistic expression.

The conversation I just had with my (albeit, quite drunk) graduate school bound roommate was somewhat startling. Joseph was recently offered a fully funded TA position in the English department at Utah State University. For two years now, hes been employed as a proofing editor at a law firm that specializes in patent drafting and litigation. Essentially he checks the punctuation and grammar for the driest technical documents imaginable, for hours at a time and days on end. To me, Joseph is of the age, 30, to possess an arbitrary number of years (6, in my case) that I expect will mark the next stage of wisdom and consciousness. But as I come to understand the perspective of my drunken elder, I begin to recognize his insights as sophomoric at best, and mindlessly plagiarized at worst. Between his drunken condition, his unrelenting stubbornness, and his idiosyncratic bullshitting tendencies, it is quite difficult to get a nuanced or accurate perspective. The first conversation/ridiculous argument had to do with why the fire department is called first to an emergency and the ambulance is called second (or even potentially not at all). His big punch line is that, duh, clearly we are wasting a lot of resources on the fire department who supposedly gets paid for how many calls they respond to. I suggest that no-shit it seems somewhat wasteful and doesnt really make sense, so there is likely some piece or pieces of information that we dont understand. In other words, Im more likely to assume that because it presently operates the way it does, there are reasons for its successful functioning that can be logically understood. The final point is a very classic sense of ivory-tower pretentious liberalism that is so deeply rooted into his personal ideology that it can only described as reactive dogmatism. He applies faith in liberal ideology so rigidly that a) he believes its the proper measure for everyone around him, and b) hes completely blinded from recognizing that nearly all of his daily functions contradict his religion. He continually referred to Mcdonalds and Walmart establishments he despises (for reasons that even liberals would argue were superfluous and superficial moral issues like target marketing, but I digress), but as with most people I know, conservative or liberal, who havent really engaged in a meaningful debate with themselves on the particular topic, the question why is a completely disorienting under-cut to the jaw. It was scary seeing this relatively smart individual so defenseless and desperate to balance his intellect on the thin mainstream line of liberal ideology.

Tonight was July 4th and the conversation I just had with Katie made it clear that we have two very different conceptions of a relationships natural evolution. It seems to lend a logical explanation for the bad boyfriend/husband effect (of course the bad girlfriend/wife effect exists, but it generally seems to happen in dominant patriarchal type relationships) thats so rampant these days. I came to realize that I had a very clear idea of how my mindset would change when I got married. ILet me assure you that many men think about this, and often. The strange thing is that I have a wildly optimistic vision of married life. The purpose of marriage is taken very seriously and I expect my behavior and effort to completely change. Katie on the other hand, is more practical by assuming that present behavior equates to behavior for the future. You can see the fundamental paradox for the relationship. I show my interest and commitment when the relationship reaches a point of marriage, however Katie expects me to show interest and commitment before she gets married. I really do believe that Ill do things very differently from when I did prior. However, there is a problem with my assumption that I believe to be very popular, it conflicts with Katies expectation of seeing the results before the commitment moves forward.