We're uncomfortable about considering history as a science. It's classified as a social science which is considered not quite scientific.

In the post-enlightenment Europe of the 19th century the highest authority was no longer the Church. Instead it was science. Thus was born racial anti-Semitism based on two disciplines regarded as science in their day - the 'scientific study of race' and the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel.

It seems to me that socialists today can preserve their position in academic economics merely by the pretense that the differences are entirely moral questions about which science cannot decide.

It has become almost a cliche to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics.

What if the Soviet intervention was a blessing in disguise? It saved the myth that if the Soviets were not to intervene there would have been some flowering authentic democratic socialism and so on. I'm a little bit more of a pessimist there. I think that the Soviets - it's a very sad lesson - by their intervention saved the myth.

No matter how old and glorious the models sad indeed is the woman who sees fashion as a means of self-expression rather than an agent of social control.

I got a degree in sociology didn't read much fiction in college and I was a pretty political left-wing type of guy. I wanted to do some kind of work in social change and make things better for the poor man and I was very romantic and passionate about it.

For many the hijab represents modesty piety and devotion to God and I truly respect that. But the hijab should not be used as a means of applying social pressure on people.

I don't think socialism and I don't think warmness and respect are necessarily bad words.

Among those who are satisfactory in this respect it is desirable to have represented as great a diversity of intellectual tradition social milieu and personal character as possible.