Comments on "Overlooked Concepts or Ideas II" & Reminders

I read through summaries and questions the families submitted regarding our last family exercise and have decided not to accept any of the questions. Everyone who participated will get the 5 activity points however, but no bonus points of course. Frankly, after reading over these sections in the text again and your comments, I was not convinced these concepts or ideas were worth resurrecting, however central they may be regarded by the authors. I would say that I was sympathetic to the Black family's selection of Merton's theory of deviance (especially since I do talk about that in my criminology class), but the text does a real hatchet job on it (which I did not expect you to know) and the family presentation had some problems. I honestly tried to re-work some of the questions you submitted, but in the end I did not think it was worth the effort. Nonetheless, I trust you got something out of this exercise, even if it will not be covered on the final exam.

________________________

REMINDERS: (1) papers are due on Tuesday 4/29.
(2)check the April 25 blog post for a description of our last short essay assignment as well as a description of our last family activity involving making up questions for the final exam.

See you Tuesday.

Essay III & Final Family Activity

As promised yesterday, you'll see the description of our last essay assignment below. I do not intend to hand out a hard copy of it in class, so just refer to this blog post. The same goes for the final family activity described below, which is basically a replay of making up questions for the midterm, only now it is for the final exam.

_________________________

Essay III

A. In the last section of the excerpt from Prof. Ahrens' lectures (3 copies of which are on reserve in the library), "Work and the Development of Corporate or Ordered Life: Part III Outer Organization and Structures of Modern Society (pp. 189-208), Ahrens presents a distinctive view of modern society and its potential to enhance human life. In this context, I want you to write an essay discussing what Ahrens sees as the potential of modern society for good. But since he also recognizes problems with modern society, I want you to identify ONE such problem. Finally, and briefly, based on Ahrens' view, what would you say the future of society holds; that is, do you see the good outweighing the bad or vice versa?

B. The essay should be roughly 3 pages (single-spaced handwritten or double-spaced typewritten). Be sure to give the page #(s) of any quotations from Ahrens' lectures which you cite in your essay. The essay is worth 25 points and is due on TUESDAY, MAY 6TH.

__________________________

FINAL FAMILY ACTIVITY: This final family activity will involve making up questions from the latter half of the course for the final exam. The second half begins with class lectures on Chapter 6: Lenin & Luxemburg. Remember that you should make up SHORT-ANSWER questions and they should come from what we covered in class. I want each family to make up THREE (and only three) questions to submit to me, along with the answers of course. Each participating family member will earn 7 points for this exercise (7 points because we need to have a total of 25 such activity points for the semester). I will try to accept at least one question from each family; for each additional question I accept, that family will earn one bonus point. I will give you some class time next week to discuss this with your family members. The deadline for submitting these questions will be TUESDAY, MAY 6TH.

_____________________

Regarding the overlooked concepts and ideas, I will post brief summaries of the families' summaries that were submitted yesterday, along with your proposed question (if I can revise a couple of them). Look for this on the blog on MONDAY.

More Lecture Notes

Since I have some time this morning, I thought I'd go ahead and wrap up my commentary on functionalism by posting my lecture notes on Robert Merton, Parsons' greatest student and colleague who just passed away in 2003. Again, copy these notes and insert them in your notebook. If you have any questions about any of these blog-posted lecture notes, don't hesitate to ask, preferably at the beginning of class. So, on Tuesday (4/22) we'll jump ahead to Chapter 16, and I will also give the families some time in class to consider the overlooked concept or idea you want to present on Thursday.

Robert K. Merton (1910-2003)

A. Of all of Parsons' students/colleagues/defenders, I believe it can be fairly said that Robert Merton left the biggest mark on contemporary American sociology. And he did so in many areas (deviance, methods, etc.), as well as by modifying some aspects of functionalism. It is this latter point that I want to focus on in particular.

B. Merton's contributions to functionalism are discussed under the heading, "Specifying Functionalism" (p. 361). There are three such conceptual specifications that are covered, which I would say have broad application.

1. First, the distinction between MANIFEST and LATENT function. MANIFEST FUNCTION being "the observed or intended outcome." LATENT FUNCTION being "the unintended or unrecognized result."

(a) The authors then proceed to give examples of this from Durkheim and Veblen. Merton apparently referred to Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class and suggested that: "accumulation of material possessions had the manifest function of making life more comfortable and the latent function of providing status and prestige." (I am not so sure I agree -- I believe Veblen would have insisted that status and prestige are part of the manifest function of the accumulation of wealth.)

(b) I like the example of Piven and Cloward in their book, Regulating the Poor, where they distinguish bewteen the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (give the poor just enough so they will not rebel). This distinction suggests the need to look beneath the appearance of things.

2. Second, the concept of DYSFUNCTION (or negatively functional). Note that in describing this, the authors also note how it responds to an issue Inkeles raised. See middle two paragraphs, p. 362. (the term, dysfunction, should be in bold print.)

C. The above distinctions (manifest, latent, dysfunction) have implications for Parsons' focus on system equilibrium. See top p. 364.

D. Finally, I believe we need to acknowledge a contribution of Merton's that I know I've often made use of (although I wonder if it was really original with him) -- the concept of a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.

1. The authors note how "self-fulfilling prophecy" is connected with another well-known observation of W.I. Thomas -- "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." See bank example, p. 365. Also, Dr. King -- Belief in racial inferiority justified slavery and later segregation, and that slavery and segregation kept Blacks inferior, which served to rationalize the perpetuation of that unequal system and convince many Blacks to accept their status.

E. The bottom line for Merton as regards his ammendments to functionalism is that he challenged the accusation that functionalism is inherently conservative.

Chapters in text to be covered & Lecture Notes

As I put on the blackboard on Tuesday, here is the list of chapters in the text that I plan to cover over the rest of the semester:
Chapter 14
Introduction to Section VIII
Chapter 16
Introduction to Section IX
Chapter 19
Chapter 24
Ahrens notes (3 copies of which are on reserve in the library)

I thought I would also post some lecture notes to catch up a bit, and also to give the families an indication of what I plan to cover (and not cover), which may help a bit in terms of making a decision about which overlooked concept or idea you want to present.

Section VII: Twentieth-Century Functionalism and Beyond

A. This introduction is surprisingly short and weak considering the fact that functionalism is one of the dominant sociological theories of the 20th century. It's a theory whose principal concern is ORDER in society, exploring the functions of various elements of society -- how the various elements or parts are integrated in the larger whole of society.

Chapter 14: Twentieth-Century Functionalism: Parsons and Merton

(As I have already noted in class, I don't believe the authors do a very good job presenting Parsons' overall view of society or the more important criticisms of this theory. So I am going to rely more on the short piece by Alex Inkeles which I handed out, as well as draw on the text occasionally.)

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)

A. Despite the difficulty of his writing style (discussed p. 348), and the wide criticism of his theories, Parsons was one of the most important and influential sociological theorists America has produced.

1. Although it took him a while to break into the Sociology Dept. at Harvard (9 years as an untenured instructor), he eventually became chairman of that department which was re-named the Dept. of Social Relations under his leadership. As chairman, he helped train some of the most prominent American sociologists of the 20th century such as Robert Merton. Parsons even made the cover of Time magazine on the occasion of his death in 1979, a feat not too many social scientists have accomplished.

B. In his earliest major work -- The Structure of Social Action (briefly mentioned and discussed on p. 349), Parsons accomplished at least three major things:

1. First, he introduced an American audience to the work of some of the great European sociologists whose work had been largely neglected to this point (1937) -- namely, Durkheim, Weber, and Pareto. His commentary on Durkheim alone was well over 100 pages, and very insightful and comprehensive. He felt all three thinkers were converging on a comprehensive theory of social action, which he went on to present in the rest of the book. (Also, he translated some of Weber's work)

2. Second, Parsons was one of the first sociologists in America to take seriously the notion that society is a system, which is to say, he embraced SOCIAL REALISM.

3. Third, in his theory of social action he tried to integrate aspects of PSYCHOLOGY (Freud), ANTHROPOLOGY, and SOCIOLOGY. As the authors observe (mid p. 349): "Social action, wrote Parsons, is (1) voluntaristic, or a matter of making choices; (2) subjective, or based on internal orientations and responses; and (3) at least partially grounded or limited by the norms and values of one's culture." (Note: this account does not directly correspond with those three disciplines.)

C. But beyond this early emphasis on social action, after WWII he came to focus more on the bigger picture of social order (Martindale -- move from Social Behaviorism to Macrofunctionalism, p. 349). It is in a book entitled, The Social System, that he most clearly (or turgidly) articulates the so-called "structural-functional framework," which I believe is better captured in the excerpt from Inkeles than in our text.

1. Inkeles observes that the so-called "organismic analogy" -- looking at society, like a biological organism, in terms of structures and functions -- has a long history. Certainly was evident in our discussion of many 19th century sociological theorists.

2. The structural-functional view focuses on society as a whole or a system, and on the interrelation of INSTITUTIONS moreso than individuals or groups.

3. It contends that what accounts for the persistence and continuity of society, as new generations come and go, is that "societies find means (structures) (which) fulfill needs (functions)...of organized social life." (p. 35)

4. Inkeles goes on to observe that the structural-functional view is more concerned with SOCIAL STATICS, or explaining the existing social order (not how it came to be or changes) -- how various institutions function to keep society in operation. (This supports the view of many commentators that Parsons is a "status quo conservative," ideologically speaking. p. 354 bottom)

(a) For example, as Inkeles brings out: the family is an institution set up to "...ensure fulfillment of the functions of sexual reproduction, of early care of the dependent infant, and of his training in the ways of society in which we will live." (this conservative view of the family comes through in the authors' discussion of gender, p. 356)

(b) Structural-functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or co-ordinated to preserve the unity of society, the social organism.

D. Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not notice in the text) is that structural-functionalists often fail to specify for whom or what something is "functional." "What is functional for society may not be functional for the individual." (I am not sure I agree, but...) Inkeles goes on to suggest that the functionalists tend to underemphasize the individual needs relative to the group or society.

E. Inkeles also gets at what I believe is a more serious charge -- that it tends to provide a rationalization for the existing institutions and social order -- that what exists is interpreted as functional, therefore, changing or removing an institution would be interpreted as detrimental to society.

1. This is the point at which the so-called "conflict theorists" (including C. Wright Mills) would challenge this perspective. (This criticism is referred to in the Critique and Contributions section, p. 358, but it is not well brought out.)

2. This has to do with Parsons' introduction of the concept of EQUILIBRIUM (which is very inadequately treated on p. 350, text). "Homeostatis" is another term for this -- the idea that just as the body regulates, adjusts itself (eg. body temperature, etc.), so too, society has mechanisms that seek to adjust parts of society -- to bring them back into order, stability (Inkeles, pp. 37-8).

(a) Inkeles puts his finger on a number of problems with this equilbrium model as it applies to society, especially how it ignores the role of conflict in society. See, pp. 38-9)

(b) More ammunition to expose the conservative bias built into this equilibrium notion is provided in the following passage from Walter Buckley (a systems' theorist in his own right): "From many statements made by functionalists, it seemed possible to conclude that since a social system persisting a long time is functionally integrated, or has reached a state of 'equilibrium,' it must have attained an ideal state of adjustment, whether in terms of individual happiness or common welfare. Such a situation, therefore, is evaluated as 'good' and must not be changed: what is, is best, and any change is for the worse."
(But Buckley went on to note that, although this has been the interpretation made by some, functionalism can also have radical implications. It all depends on what is defined as a stable, healthy society.)


That's all for now. This brings us up to Robert Merton, about whom I plan to focus on his distinction between "manifest" and "latent" functions.

Family Activity: Resurrecting Overlooked Concepts or Ideas II

As I have been hinting at in class, I have decided to go back to a family exercise we did during the first half of the course as described more specifically on the blog post for FEB 27th. Please refer to that post for the details of this new family activity. The only difference will be that you have much more material from which to draw. For this family activity you may choose an overlooked concept or idea from Chapter 5 thru Chapter 16 (which we'll get to next week). You are also welcome to draw from chapters in the text which we glossed over. I may give you some time tomorrow (Thurs. 4/17) to begin brainstorming and some additional time next Tuesday. We'll aim for next Thursday (4/24) to present your overlooked idea or concept to the rest of the class and turn in a brief write-up describing it, as well as a proposed short-answer question based on it, for which you may get a point extra credit if I choose to include it on the final exam. The activity itself is worth 5 points, as before.

Lecture Notes

As I indicated in my previous post (Apr. 11), I was considering posting some lecture notes in order to catch up a bit. So, here are some lecture notes on Chapters 9 & 10. You should either print these out or copy them and insert them in your class notebook.

_____________________

On Thursday (4/10) I began talking about Vilfredo Pareto who the authors describe as the quintessential theorist of political cynicism, inspired by his fellow countryman, Machiavelli. But before he became a cynic, however, he was a cautious liberal who believed in progress. The passage I quoted in class from the bottom of p. 231 - 232 expressed an optimism that is absent in his later work.

2. But during his final 25 years he increasingly became, in his view, "a nonideological realist" about politics in society.

3. His concept of the "Circulation of Elites" reflects this (which can be compared to Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy") -- the basic idea being that society will always be governed by some sort of elite, whether it be in the context of a so-called democracy, or socialism, or whatever type of system. See especially p. 230, much of which I planned to quote in class.

(a) It is a harsh view, a realistic one (Pareto regarded himself as the only REAL social theorist), but a view which leaves no room for the possibility of change or substantial improvement. (The authors note how Pareto rejected Durkheim's quest for a new morality based on scientific principles as hopelessly naive.) See p. 236 (2nd to last paragraph)

4. Regarding gender, Pareto comes across as being to the right of Rush Limbaugh (and his criticism of feminists as "femi-nazis"). The authors suggest some personal experiences may have contributed to his misogynst views. He regarded women as naturally fickle and promiscuous, incapable of scientific thinking, etc., etc....

C. Robert Michels (1876-1936): his views of politics and society were not quite as hard-edged as Pareto's, but he clearly embraced a more realistic view and was not that hopeful about change.

1. His so-called "Iron Law of Oligarchy" (oligarchy meaning rule by a few) may come as close as anything to a sociological LAW. See bottom p. 238

(a) And note how this clearly applies to Marxist revolutions -- the state would never be abolished or "wither away." See mid p. 239.

(b) Michels was also sensitive to the difficulty of enlisting the support of the masses in overthrowing capitalism -- as long as there appeared some hope or opportunity for at least some members of the proletariat to rise to the top.

(c) In fact, Michels recognized that rather than demeaning, alienating work giving rise to radicalism, it is more likely to breed apathy among the workers.


Chapter 10 Economic Sociological Theories: Veblen and Schumpeter

A. Although both these thinkers had interesting insights into the nature of capitalist society, we are going to focus on Veblen as the better-known and more influential figure (being a major influence on C. Wright Mills) and gloss over Schumpeter, in part because I am not that familiar with his work, and I believe it could be characterized as more strictly economic rather than sociological.

B. The chapter opens, appropriately I believe, with a song from "Fiddler on the Roof" -- "If I were a rich man...." -- a song which especially illustrates some concepts in Veblen.

C. Biographically, Veblen was born and raised on the farm in the Midwest (Wis. & Minn.), but he clearly "broke the mold," becoming quite an intellectual, one with a critical, even sarcastic bent. (As we've seen before, the authors indulge in a little pop psychology, suggesting that Veblen's marginality and struggles obtaining and keeping an academic appointment fed his criticism of America and higher education. Perhaps, but to what extent is pure speculation, and suggesting such a connection tends to diminish the strength of his arguments.)


That's all for now, so on Tuesday (4/15) we'll pick up at this point in Chapter 10. And remember, after Chapter 10, we'll skip ahead to Chapter 13 in the text. Also, don't forget the extra credit opportunity I described in the previous post (4/11).

Extra Credit Opportunity &

Below I am going to describe the extra credit opportunity I briefly described yesterday in class. Also, I may be posting some lecture notes over the weekend or on Monday in an effort to catch up a bit, so you might want to look for that. If I do post some lecture notes, I'll let you know on Tuesday.

EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY: By attending any ONE of the events (such as a talk, roundtable, or panel discussion) associated with the upcoming Citizenship and Leadership Symposium (April 12-24) you may earn 3 extra credit points. To earn these three points you need to attend the event of course AND post a brief overview of the event in which you should also tie it in to our class. For example, I am sure the various speakers and panels will be referencing various social thinkers (such as Marx, among others) or broader theoretical perspectives that we have covered (or will cover in class). Or, even if the speakers do not drop any names you should be able to relate their remarks to at least one of the ideas, issues, or concepts we have discussed in class. You only have to make one such tie-in. I just want some evidence that you went and thought about what you heard in the context of this course. POST YOUR RESPONSES AS COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG POST (no more than two paragraphs).