Quotations When the sociologist concerns himself with power, he will “look behind” the official mechanisms that are supposed to regulate the power in the community. This does not necessarily mean that he will regard the official mechanisms as totally ineffective or their legal definition as totally illusionary. But at the very least he will insist that there is another level of reality to be investigated in the particular system of power. (Berger 1963) My suggestion is that when we experience fully the contradiction, conflict, and pain of engaging with our own teaching and research, we can’t help but be transformed into nepantleras. Not only do we routinely disrupt the status quo, we become uniquely practiced, through our critical engagement with the complex processes underlying the appearance of a stable social reality, in mapping complexity and journeying through difference to new frontiers. (O’Brien 2009)
Arguments
Berger’s (1963) approach was more like an invitation to assess one’s conceptions and realize if they are really valid and applicable in understanding or identifying the real subject or ‘problem’ at hand. He’s not asking you to disregard the ideas that the said society had accustomed to you but to consider seeing things in a wider scope. One must search for the backbone of everything and not be fixated on the obvious. When something is not in order, do not focus on the exterior but try to examine the roots and branches that hold it together. For O’Brien (2009), to dwell on the unorthodox part of a study, the personal conflicts that one experiences, is an effective way to edify one’s knowledge when it comes to her expertise and of course, not only does it add to one’s growth as a professional but also to one’s awareness of himself or herself. Even if a sociologist is considered as ‘value-free’, one’s experience and all the conflicts that he or she had encountered have an insurmountable influence on one’s take on a phenomenon.
Questions
Is Sociology subjective or objective?
Is love just a metaphor for meeting standards and conditions? Does it even really exist?
Is the kind of mind set suggested by these said sociologists applicable to everyone?

Critique O’Brien and Berger’s articles showed similarities specifically about pushing boundaries and limitations when it comes to research and understanding phenomena within the society. O’Brien had a past with the Mormons therefore the fact that she said that she conducted her research as a “disinterested observer” meant that even at the beginning, she was already influenced by the contradiction. And being influenced by such circumstances had brought her to a clearer view of who she was and what she wanted to pursue as a sociologist. I find it true that to dwell on the most vulnerable parts of our being really influences us in our perspectives and actions but is applying it to research really beneficial? One thing that was problematic for me was that I had the idea that sociology is grounded on objectivity, so it is more on empiricism. I know that it is her intention to widen the scopes of sociologists when it comes to research but will other sociologists accept such methods? Berger on the other hand focused on problems, its distinctions, and how should one address it. A common mistake is when people tend to perceive any type of problem as a sociological one just because something is out of the ordinary. He suggests that people should consider investigating the back story of a phenomenon thereby fully understanding the subject. But won’t there be ethical concerns when it comes to using unorthodox ways to get answers? I do agree that not everything is what it seems therefore a keen eye on the ongoing events is a must and as I’ve said awhile ago, one must not be fixated on the obvious nor to mundane explanations.

References:
Berger, Peter. 1963. 'Sociology As A Form Of Consciousness'. Invitation to Sociology 10-14.
O'Brien, Jodi. 2009. 'Sociology As An Epistemology Of Contradiction'. Sociological Perspectives 51(1):5- 22. Retrieved May 11, 2013 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sop.2009.52.1.5).