Ive had this urge lately to examine myself and my role in entering social work. Students that study sociology, for the most part encompass all, or most of these qualities:
1)huge hearts
2)desire to change lives in positive way
3)learn to function more efficiently as a society
4)end world hunger and make sure all babies are adopted into middle class, mentally stable, diverse yet comfortable, homes. (haha. no, its true.)

So then, I talked with a teacher of mine about this frustration that I have-with myself. The thing is, I've always noticed this trait of mine. Almost every problem, issue, controversial topic that exists, I could write a passionate and epic novel about siding on the left side, and then I could turn around and do the same for the right side. It's not indecision, it's open-mindedness to the point of extremity. As a Christian, the only thing in the world that I am absolutely one sided on is Jesus. That's it. Now, that's not a bad thing (in my mind) but my teacher explained that she too, feels the same way. She said it is the curse of the mind of a sociologist. So then, to better explain in a way that I can't, I stumbled upon this passage about just this topic! (How convenient.) So here it is, in better words than I could come up with..especially the last paragraph.

"WHAT IS PROBLEMATIC about morality in sociology? The answer is nothing, or lots, depending on what and how morality is built into sociology.

At a general level, being moral means no more and no less than supporting or opposing people, activities or things. It is equivalent to valuing or disvaluing, preferring or disliking, justifying or damning, or just being interested in an active way. In this sense, morality is ubiquitous, and hence sociology, like all other social activities, is unavoidably moral. Why would anyone practice sociology if they did not value it or have an interest in it?

The issue, then, is not whether sociology can, or should, be value-free--this is a strategy that sets up a false dichotomy as a prelude to forcing a choice that disvalues enquiry and leaves room for moralising--but what kind of morality, what set of values, is at work: do sociologists value the ethos of enquiry and allow it to drive their work, or do they bring values to sociology that are incompatible with this ethos?

Sociologists rarely lay out this clash of values for inspection because they don't want to put themselves in a position where they have to choose between them; they want to think of themselves as enquirers while at the same time promoting values that are antithetical to the ethos of enquiry. This wanting things both ways pervades sociology."

I want things both ways, everything..both ways. Why? Because then everyone is happy and the result is peace. Doesn't conflict arise when one person wants one thing and the other wants something else? So then it makes perfect sense as to why God made me this way. This constant struggle of being so completely passionate about two opposing ideas....

One day my head is going to explode from this kind of stuff. Seriously.