Reorganize categories into subdirectories

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 97 deletions

diff --git a/how-to-does-it-work.rst b/how-to-does-it-work.rst
deleted file mode 100644
index a623711..0000000
--- a/how-to-does-it-work.rst
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,97 +0,0 @@
-How does it work (preparing for appointment with Len)?
-######################################################
-
-:date: 2005-12-28T01:51:00
-:category: research
-:tags: dissertation, BostonMiracle
-
-Len asked me to explain him how should all these theories I quote in my
-dissertation proposal work together and how I am not creating yet
-another Great Sociological Theory.
-
-Of course, that this question hits on the most complicated part of the
-question. How does it all fits together? Am I not creating just another
-grand theory which has answer for everything but understands nothing?
-And if I want to get my theories out of data, and not to impose my
-theories on data, what should I do with the theories which already exist
-and which seem so close to what I see in my data? And isn’t whole that
-founding theories only on data more or less humbug, because there just
-are plenty of theories around and research cannot (and shouldn’t) just
-ignore them?
-
-Somehow it resembles a denomination which is based “solely on the New
-Testament” and they “purged their teaching of all human inventions” (I
-have actually met a pastor who told me these two things about his
-denomination; needless to say, that I have run out of his church
-immediately ``:-)``) — these are usually the most dogmatic and
-legalistic church groups, whereas those Christians who just do not care
-that much about purity of their teaching tend to be quite often most
-relaxed, loving, and free. Isn’t best research also the one which is not
-that much concerned about purity of methodology? Of course, one
-shouldn’t go to the other extreme (in the Church context it would be
-liberalism), and to throw away all good rules, which generations of
-scientist found, as good preventive measures how not to fools
-themselves.
-
-Back to the main question of how to deal with my different theories and
-my data. The basic idea I had was that there are many streams of thought
-which seems to lead to the similar conclusions, although sometimes the
-theories go from very different and strange angles. So for example, both
-Braithwaite (criminologist and founder of the theory of reintegrative
-shaming) and Charon (introduction to the symbolic interactionism)
-mention as an important factor how symbolic interactionist perspective
-does not include static concept of personality, which is a static result
-of our past experience (or it is inborn and thus even more static)
-determining our present action, but it accept that past experiences
-influence our present action through *definition of self based on our
-reactions to the past experiences*. When I read this for the first time,
-I was shocked. In that time I was just discovering (through a
-church-based program of inner healing) how much my understanding of
-myself very much determined (quite often not for good) my behavior, and
-how much I need to learn (and be told) who I am, so that I could see
-world differently and hopefully grasp more of the life. I didn’t expect
-much that I could find in (then still rather dry) sociology something
-corresponding to this very personal experience and new understanding,
-which seem to be too churchly and far from secular science. And yet,
-this was exactly what I read in this criminological textbook!
-
-And when I was reading many newspaper articles about crime in Boston, I
-could see struggle of Black Bostonians to grasp self-image of “the
-ordinary citizen” and to persuade everybody that they are such. I could
-believe that actually Black pastors stepping into this self-image and
-BPD switching their approach of Roxbury & co. from “enemy battlefield”
-to “part of our city, where our fellow Bostonians need help” (my own
-terms, not quotations), that these steps could help to empower and
-mobilize Black communities of Boston to help eliminate crime in their
-midst. And this effort could clearly explain quite angry opposition of
-Rev. Rivers against Jessie Jackson’s trashing of Boston as racist—not
-only that Jessie offended his friend in the effort to improve position
-of Blacks in Boston (both Mayor Menino and BPD representatives), but he
-also directly attacked this new self-image of ordinary citizens and
-pushed them back to the image of poor underserved oppressed Blacks.
-
-Unfortunately, the story continues, this business of changing self-image
-is very long-term process — actually this is just part of the process of
-overcoming Black slavery which (with interruptions) has been continuing
-for past hundred and fifty years and it is far from being finished. When
-the first effort made a huge difference, because improved cooperation
-between BPD and the Black community of Boston made a huge difference in
-the crime statistics, people in power of the City of Boston lost
-interest in supporting this process and it collapsed on insufficient
-funding (totally unsupported hearsay claims that the Boston Ten Point
-Coallition is broke and relations among participants of TPC are falling
-apart). Now, the only hope is that Mayor Menino & co. will get afraid
-again from the Black crime and will find some resources to support
-programs in Roxbury.
-
-Moreover, not only that this example very well works in this
-psychotherapeutical-SI context of self-image, but it seems to be very
-nice example of how the theory of reciprocity describes that “[people]
-perceive that others are behaving cooperatively/shirking […] they
-cooperate/retaliate.”
-
-All this is nice, but obviously this kind of anecdotical thinking is an
-exact example of all wishful thinking which would be rightfully trashed
-by Bernstein & co. And qualitative and interpretative research being
-what it is, I do not see any way how to make this into testable theory
-and how to eventually prove it.