The following are the questions I accepted from the families. Remember, these will be on the final exam. Each participating member earns three points for this activity, and the members of the GREEN FAMILY will each earn two bonus points.
BLUE FAMILY (Jessica H., Amanda, Grant, Natalie)
1. In what TWO respects did Weber have a different view of social change than Marx, Comte, and Durkheim? (2)
ANSWER: (a) Weber did not have any linear conception of social evolution or commitment to ideas of beneficial progress. (b) Weber was pessimistic about the dehumanization of modern rationalized, bureaucratized life.
2. In the context of the critical theorists discussed in Chapter 16, such as Max Horkheimer who you read about, what did they regard as "emancipatory theory" (which is also similar to Horkheimer's idea of objective reason)? (2)
ANSWER: not simply a way to make sense of the facts, but helping people to see and understand what IS so that they can see what MIGHT BE.
YELLOW FAMILY: (Megan, Matt, Claire)
1. Regarding Weber's view of race, I applauded his clear recognition that race is a ________________________ distinction NOT a _________________________ distinction. (2)
ANSWER: a SOCIAL not a BIOLOGICAL distinction
2. Although Weber predicted the development of an "iron cage" of bureaucracy or rationality in western capitalist societies, in what other type of society did he see bureaucracy becoming even more entrenched? (1)
ANSWER: socialist
GREEN FAMILY (Jessica G., Justina, Kristin, Lewis, Courtney) 2 bonus points
1. In "Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge," what did the author claim Freud saw as important for both a healthy psyche and a healthy body politic? (1)
ANSWER: a good deal of continuing tension
2. What was the "double-consciousness" DuBois spoke of? (2)
ANSWER: Being an American and Black: "two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideas in one dark body."
3. What did Weber mean by "rationalization?" (2)
ANSWER: "the process of making life more efficient and predictable by wringing out individuality and spontaneity in life."
4. Name any TWO of the three important things that Talcott Parsons accomplished in his first book, "The Structure of Social Action." (2)
ANSWER: Any two of the following: (1) introduced an Amercian audience to the work of some great European sociologists: Durkheim, Weber, Pareto; (2) took seriously the idea of society as a system or SOCIAL REALISM; (3) his theory of social action integrated fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
_____________________________
That's it. Remember, the exam is on TUESDAY, MAY 12 from 9-12. See you there.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Reminders & More Lecture Notes
I forgot to allow time for the families to confer last Thursday 4/30 about making up final exam questions, partly because attendance was so poor. But I will make sure to give the families time this coming Tuesday 5/5. In the meantime you should be giving some thought to this and making up questions on your own so the families can decide which questions to submit on Tuesday. Remember, the deadline for submitting these questions (and answers) is WEDNESDAY, 5/6.
Also, don't forget that your final short essay, involving Ahrens and Chapter 19 in the text is due on Tuesday, May 5th. As I noted in my write-up of this assignment, I will not be very forgiving of late papers.
MORE LECTURE NOTES: we left off on Thursday in Chapter 19, where I had gotten into the Fact-Value Debate.
After noting that the authors do a pretty good job on this debate, although they rely on some of the weaker critics (in my opinion) -- Friedrichs and Gouldner, then...
1. They begin with Howard Becker's presidential address to the 1960 ASA convention, which sort of laid down the gauntlet to those who were questioning sociology as a value-free, empirical science (such as C. Wright Mills). As quoted, Becker says, "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480, bottom) -- this reflected the position of professional, institutionalized sociology.
2. The authors go on to mention some of the prominent American critics -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to value-free orthodoxy is captured in a reference to Alvin Gouldner. See short paragraph, mid. p. 482. Note the assumption that values and passion are considered synonymous, as are reason and facts.
b.) Of course, the value-free stance did not sit too well with many students (and professors) who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, to taking a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx, as the authors comment: "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (a distinction I don't really agree with, but I believe they mean: not the later, more scientific Marx but the early humanist Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view of this issue was Alfred McClung Lee. He later expanded his presidential address into a book, "Sociology for Whom?". He also founded the Society for Humanist Sociology. See middle two paragraphs, p. 486.
3. Even though this debate has yet to be resolved, the authors suggest it opened the door to a variety of new approaches.
C. The authors put the next debate (Macro/Micro Perspectives) in the context of Thomas Kuhn's, "The STructure of Scientific Revolutions," and his analysis of "paradigm change." Clearly, the fact/value debate falls under the same heading, as the authors point out, and they also describe in fairly simple terms the macro/micro debate. See bottom p. 488 - 489.
1. Although the authors see this macro/micro dichotomy as a "misguided division of the sociological endeavor" (as I also do), it has tended to divide sociologists -- even lead to competition for legitimacy and students (and their fees)-- the latter being truly pathetic in my opinion.
D. This sets the stage for the last two sections of this chapter -- recent theoretical work which attempts to bridge these divides. In particular, feminist sociological theory and theories of race and colonialism. (But, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perspectives bridging any divide. At best, they just articulate new points of view that had been missing.)
So, I am going to conclude my remarks on Chapter 19 here, which will set the stage for talking about the Ahrens material on Tuesday. See you then.
Also, don't forget that your final short essay, involving Ahrens and Chapter 19 in the text is due on Tuesday, May 5th. As I noted in my write-up of this assignment, I will not be very forgiving of late papers.
MORE LECTURE NOTES: we left off on Thursday in Chapter 19, where I had gotten into the Fact-Value Debate.
After noting that the authors do a pretty good job on this debate, although they rely on some of the weaker critics (in my opinion) -- Friedrichs and Gouldner, then...
1. They begin with Howard Becker's presidential address to the 1960 ASA convention, which sort of laid down the gauntlet to those who were questioning sociology as a value-free, empirical science (such as C. Wright Mills). As quoted, Becker says, "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480, bottom) -- this reflected the position of professional, institutionalized sociology.
2. The authors go on to mention some of the prominent American critics -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to value-free orthodoxy is captured in a reference to Alvin Gouldner. See short paragraph, mid. p. 482. Note the assumption that values and passion are considered synonymous, as are reason and facts.
b.) Of course, the value-free stance did not sit too well with many students (and professors) who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, to taking a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx, as the authors comment: "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (a distinction I don't really agree with, but I believe they mean: not the later, more scientific Marx but the early humanist Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view of this issue was Alfred McClung Lee. He later expanded his presidential address into a book, "Sociology for Whom?". He also founded the Society for Humanist Sociology. See middle two paragraphs, p. 486.
3. Even though this debate has yet to be resolved, the authors suggest it opened the door to a variety of new approaches.
C. The authors put the next debate (Macro/Micro Perspectives) in the context of Thomas Kuhn's, "The STructure of Scientific Revolutions," and his analysis of "paradigm change." Clearly, the fact/value debate falls under the same heading, as the authors point out, and they also describe in fairly simple terms the macro/micro debate. See bottom p. 488 - 489.
1. Although the authors see this macro/micro dichotomy as a "misguided division of the sociological endeavor" (as I also do), it has tended to divide sociologists -- even lead to competition for legitimacy and students (and their fees)-- the latter being truly pathetic in my opinion.
D. This sets the stage for the last two sections of this chapter -- recent theoretical work which attempts to bridge these divides. In particular, feminist sociological theory and theories of race and colonialism. (But, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perspectives bridging any divide. At best, they just articulate new points of view that had been missing.)
So, I am going to conclude my remarks on Chapter 19 here, which will set the stage for talking about the Ahrens material on Tuesday. See you then.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
More Lecture Notes
I got into Chapter 14, Twentieth-Century Functionalism, and specifically Talcott Parsons last time, so I will pick up where I left off....
C. Beyond his early emphasis on "the structure of social action" (which is also the title of his first book), in the 1950s Parsons came to focus on the bigger picture of the 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, especially Durkheim.
2. The structural-functional view focuses on society as a whole or 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 in the text, p. 356).
b.) Structural functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or coordinated to preserve the unity of society, the social organism.
D. Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not see mentioned 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 -- 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 in the text). "Homeostasis" 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. 37-38).
a.) Inkeles puts his finger on a number of problems with this equilibrium 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 the 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.)
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 between the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (that is, 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. (let me add, 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 made use of in other classes (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 second-class status.
E. The bottom line for Merton as regards his modifications to functionalism is that he challenged the accusation that functionalism is inherently conservative.
That brings me up to my comments on Max Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" (the paper I handed out) and Chapter 19, which I will take up in class tomorrow. I will also hand back your papers. Also, do not forget the final essay due next Tuesday, which involves reading those lecture notes of Prof. Ahrens on reserve in the library.
C. Beyond his early emphasis on "the structure of social action" (which is also the title of his first book), in the 1950s Parsons came to focus on the bigger picture of the 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, especially Durkheim.
2. The structural-functional view focuses on society as a whole or 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 in the text, p. 356).
b.) Structural functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or coordinated to preserve the unity of society, the social organism.
D. Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not see mentioned 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 -- 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 in the text). "Homeostasis" 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. 37-38).
a.) Inkeles puts his finger on a number of problems with this equilibrium 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 the 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.)
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 between the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (that is, 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. (let me add, 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 made use of in other classes (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 second-class status.
E. The bottom line for Merton as regards his modifications to functionalism is that he challenged the accusation that functionalism is inherently conservative.
That brings me up to my comments on Max Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" (the paper I handed out) and Chapter 19, which I will take up in class tomorrow. I will also hand back your papers. Also, do not forget the final essay due next Tuesday, which involves reading those lecture notes of Prof. Ahrens on reserve in the library.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Final Family Activity: Making Up Questions for the Final Exam & Reminders
FINAL FAMILY ACTIVITY: It is time for each of the families to start making up questions for the final exam. I will give you some time during the next couple classes to confer with your fellow family members. The second half of this course began with "The Dot-Communist Manifesto" and "Karl's New Manifesto" and Chapter 6 in the text on Lenin and Luxemburg. From that point forward, I want each family to come up with 4 SHORT-ANSWER questions from any material covered in class lecture or on the blog (as in the case of Chapters 9 & 10). I want a representative from each family to submit these 4 questions (AND ANSWERS) NO LATER THAN WEDNESDAY, MAY 6TH. I will then consider them and select at least 2 questions from each family, and for each additional question I select you will earn a bonus point. I will post these questions and answers no later than Friday, May 8th on this blog. This activity is worth 3 points and you must participate to earn those points, as well as possible bonus points.
REMINDERS: We have several more presentations tomorrow (Tues. 4/28), and the clock is ticking on several people who have not yet turned in your papers. You've already lost at least 3 points, and 4 points if you turn them in tomorrow. And you will lose another 10 points if you don't show to present your paper to the class tomorrow.
Check out the previous blog post (April 24th) in which I commented on the family activity on Chapters 9 & 10.
Finally, don't forget the final short essay on Chapter 19 and the Ahrens' lecture notes which is due next Tuesday, May 5th.
REMINDERS: We have several more presentations tomorrow (Tues. 4/28), and the clock is ticking on several people who have not yet turned in your papers. You've already lost at least 3 points, and 4 points if you turn them in tomorrow. And you will lose another 10 points if you don't show to present your paper to the class tomorrow.
Check out the previous blog post (April 24th) in which I commented on the family activity on Chapters 9 & 10.
Finally, don't forget the final short essay on Chapter 19 and the Ahrens' lecture notes which is due next Tuesday, May 5th.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Results of Family Activity IV
First, let me make some general remarks about your efforts on this exercise. Overall, the families did poorly interpreting Pareto but better with Veblen and Michels. I believe you all would have benefitted from reading the introduction to these chapters in the text. So, let me begin with some general remarks, and then I'll incorporate some of what the families concluded.
The following passage really gets to the heart of what I hoped you would have discovered on your own:
"Section V (Chapters 9 & 10) introduces the political sociology and economic sociology theories that responded to the two major aspects of the radical anticapitalism of Marx and his followers. Almost uniformly, criticism of Marxism begins with the concept of a final revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. The critics consider the notion of a classless society without a state or a ruling elite, and with everyone living 'happily ever after,' as utopian, and therefore untenable. The theoretical response is that there will always be a ruling elite, and any major change simply involves who is in charge."
"In Chapter 9, Robert Michels argues that there is an 'iron law' of oligarchy, or rule by a few -- meaning that a small number of people run any institution, including the government. Neither monarchy nor democracy is possible. Furthermore, Vilfredo Pareto claims not only that there is a circulation of elites, but that success in politics is enhanced by cynicism and hypocrisy -- that is, by manipulating one's message to fit the audience -- and that success is its own justification. Ideologically, such critics of radicalism are conservative, in the sense that they believe nothing important ever changes, only the personnel in positions of leadership. However, Pareto would argue (as do the positivists) that this is not ideological at all, but is simply reality -- that his theory is not just political, but deals with the character of both human nature and society." (p. 224)
Think about this passage in connection not only with their reaction to Marx, but how it relates to so-called communist societies of the 20th century such as the former Soviet Union. Clearly, they seem to reflect more Michels' "iron law of oligrachy" than any utopian classless society.
Veblen is a bit different from Pareto and Michels, but he too was cynical about the possibility of a classless society. Veblen was critical of capitalism. Nonetheless, "Veblen found Marxism's 'withering away of the state or political institutions as particularly untenable." (p. 254)
And now to the families:
GREEN FAMILY: For some strange reason this family began by talking about "Pareto's most important contribution to his response to Weber's ideas about capitalism..." THIS EXERCISE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WEBER! It appears you meant Marx, but you repeated Weber throughout the first paragraph. And I would also add, that Pareto's notion of "residues and derivations" is also largely irrelevant, whereas his notion of "circulation of elites" is very relevant. But the following paragraphs were pretty good:
"Unlike Marx, Robert Michels perceives little chance for a social insurrection, arguing that "the iron law of oligarchy" essentially meant that democracy, mass movements, and organization of the masses for revolution are impossible" (239). In explanation of this view, Michels further asserts, "the oligarchic and conservative tendencies of the labor leaders, the differentiation of the workers both horizontally and vertically, and the ideology of mobility all obscure the likelihood of mass revolution" (240)..."
"Veblen believed that the system won't be overthrown because "the habits and institutions are too tenacious" (247)....Marx's view that capitalism can (and will) be overthrown by the unhappy masses is unrealistic to Veblen. It is unrealistic because in Veblen's mind capitalism is too entrenched in society. So, Veblen agreed with Marx on the nature of capitalism but disagreed about there being a major change."
BLUE FAMILY: Your treatment of Pareto was ok, but failed to mention specifically his "circulation of elites" concept.
You also add something to Veblen: "Veblen also had critiques of Marx. As he says, "History is goalless, not goal-oriented; the poor do not become increasingly miserable; and there is not likely to be a growing reserve army of unemployed workers." (p. ?)... He (Veblen) thought they (the working class) were more comfortable avoiding change and so would avoid revolution."
You did bring out Michels' "iron law of oligarchy," but in talking about Michels as being most relevant to understanding 20th century communist states you make no mention of them.
YELLOW FAMILY: You also got side-tracked on Pareto's "residues and derivations". You do bring out a couple valid points about Veblen, which were mentioned above. You did the best job on the question of relevance to 20th century communist states, so I will quote part of that:
Referring to Michels' "iron law of oligarchy", you go on to say, "His argument was that there were oligarchic tendencies in every kind of human organization (238). Michels noted that the administration of social wealth always requires an extensive bureaucratic hierarchy, which leads "by an inevitable logic to the flat denial of the possibility of a state without classes, or a classless, stateless society. Thus oligarchic tendencies in all organizations preclude a final revolution leading eventually to communism" (239). The fact that Michels understood that "society is always run by a small party or small number of individuals" is relevant to understanding "so-called Marxist or communist societies that emerged in the 20th century," and the Communist Party of Cuba is an example of such a society." And I would add, not to mention the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc.
That's all for now. Please incorporate the above remarks in your notes because they may be a source for questions on the final exam. We will hear the final set of presentations on Tuesday (4/28) and some of those MIAs (missing-in-action) yesterday (Thurs. 4/23)also need to get your papers in ASAP.
The following passage really gets to the heart of what I hoped you would have discovered on your own:
"Section V (Chapters 9 & 10) introduces the political sociology and economic sociology theories that responded to the two major aspects of the radical anticapitalism of Marx and his followers. Almost uniformly, criticism of Marxism begins with the concept of a final revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. The critics consider the notion of a classless society without a state or a ruling elite, and with everyone living 'happily ever after,' as utopian, and therefore untenable. The theoretical response is that there will always be a ruling elite, and any major change simply involves who is in charge."
"In Chapter 9, Robert Michels argues that there is an 'iron law' of oligarchy, or rule by a few -- meaning that a small number of people run any institution, including the government. Neither monarchy nor democracy is possible. Furthermore, Vilfredo Pareto claims not only that there is a circulation of elites, but that success in politics is enhanced by cynicism and hypocrisy -- that is, by manipulating one's message to fit the audience -- and that success is its own justification. Ideologically, such critics of radicalism are conservative, in the sense that they believe nothing important ever changes, only the personnel in positions of leadership. However, Pareto would argue (as do the positivists) that this is not ideological at all, but is simply reality -- that his theory is not just political, but deals with the character of both human nature and society." (p. 224)
Think about this passage in connection not only with their reaction to Marx, but how it relates to so-called communist societies of the 20th century such as the former Soviet Union. Clearly, they seem to reflect more Michels' "iron law of oligrachy" than any utopian classless society.
Veblen is a bit different from Pareto and Michels, but he too was cynical about the possibility of a classless society. Veblen was critical of capitalism. Nonetheless, "Veblen found Marxism's 'withering away of the state or political institutions as particularly untenable." (p. 254)
And now to the families:
GREEN FAMILY: For some strange reason this family began by talking about "Pareto's most important contribution to his response to Weber's ideas about capitalism..." THIS EXERCISE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WEBER! It appears you meant Marx, but you repeated Weber throughout the first paragraph. And I would also add, that Pareto's notion of "residues and derivations" is also largely irrelevant, whereas his notion of "circulation of elites" is very relevant. But the following paragraphs were pretty good:
"Unlike Marx, Robert Michels perceives little chance for a social insurrection, arguing that "the iron law of oligarchy" essentially meant that democracy, mass movements, and organization of the masses for revolution are impossible" (239). In explanation of this view, Michels further asserts, "the oligarchic and conservative tendencies of the labor leaders, the differentiation of the workers both horizontally and vertically, and the ideology of mobility all obscure the likelihood of mass revolution" (240)..."
"Veblen believed that the system won't be overthrown because "the habits and institutions are too tenacious" (247)....Marx's view that capitalism can (and will) be overthrown by the unhappy masses is unrealistic to Veblen. It is unrealistic because in Veblen's mind capitalism is too entrenched in society. So, Veblen agreed with Marx on the nature of capitalism but disagreed about there being a major change."
BLUE FAMILY: Your treatment of Pareto was ok, but failed to mention specifically his "circulation of elites" concept.
You also add something to Veblen: "Veblen also had critiques of Marx. As he says, "History is goalless, not goal-oriented; the poor do not become increasingly miserable; and there is not likely to be a growing reserve army of unemployed workers." (p. ?)... He (Veblen) thought they (the working class) were more comfortable avoiding change and so would avoid revolution."
You did bring out Michels' "iron law of oligarchy," but in talking about Michels as being most relevant to understanding 20th century communist states you make no mention of them.
YELLOW FAMILY: You also got side-tracked on Pareto's "residues and derivations". You do bring out a couple valid points about Veblen, which were mentioned above. You did the best job on the question of relevance to 20th century communist states, so I will quote part of that:
Referring to Michels' "iron law of oligarchy", you go on to say, "His argument was that there were oligarchic tendencies in every kind of human organization (238). Michels noted that the administration of social wealth always requires an extensive bureaucratic hierarchy, which leads "by an inevitable logic to the flat denial of the possibility of a state without classes, or a classless, stateless society. Thus oligarchic tendencies in all organizations preclude a final revolution leading eventually to communism" (239). The fact that Michels understood that "society is always run by a small party or small number of individuals" is relevant to understanding "so-called Marxist or communist societies that emerged in the 20th century," and the Communist Party of Cuba is an example of such a society." And I would add, not to mention the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc.
That's all for now. Please incorporate the above remarks in your notes because they may be a source for questions on the final exam. We will hear the final set of presentations on Tuesday (4/28) and some of those MIAs (missing-in-action) yesterday (Thurs. 4/23)also need to get your papers in ASAP.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Reminder & Some Lecture Notes
First, let me remind you that your papers are due tomorrow and we will begin class presentations on them, starting at the top of the alphabet (as determined by the cut of the cards). Again, aim for a presentation of around 10 minutes. Secondly, I will hand out a write-up of our final essay assignment in class tomorrow.
LECTURE NOTES: Since we do not have much class time left, I will be blogging some lecture notes over the next week and a half. So be looking for these and be sure to print them out or copy them and insert them with your other class notes.
Chapter 13: Society, Self, and Mind (Cooley, Mead, and Freud)
A. The authors open this chapter with a point that I would have to agree with: "When sociology teachers complain that they are having trouble getting their students to think sociologically, they usually mean getting them to think about society as a whole. In the United States we are more attuned to individual-level explanations." (p. 310)
1. And Cooley, Mead, and Freud certainly provide insight into that individual-level (or group-level) interaction, although I would also insist that they were aware of that larger social environment which plays a role in the development (and dysfunction) of individuals.
Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929)
A. He grew up, was educated, and taught at the University of Michigan. In 1918 he became president of the American Sociological Society. His work helped lay the foundation for social psychology and symbolic interactionism.
1. He was influenced by Spencer but did not agree with his more wholistic organismic analogy. He argued that Spencer did not fully appreciate the significance of individual interaction.
B. "Sociological concepts, for Cooley, must be anchored in the real social world of interacting individuals." (p. 312) At one point, the authors describe Cooley's understanding of social life as "mentalistic."
C. Three key concepts for Cooley:
1. "Looking-glass self" -- that our sense of who we are is developed in reference to others. You understand yourself, who you are, in terms of your understanding of what others think or imagine you to be.
2. How people choose to define you, look upon you -- as a criminal, a nerd, a leader, etc. -- will strongly influence your identity. Creates what Cooley may have been the first to call a "self-fulfilling prophecy," which I would argue is especially relevant when talking about the identity of racial and ethnic minorities.
3. And these individual interactions usually take place in "primary groups." (See definition of primary groups at bottom p. 313) And "Because primary groups are the major, universal groups, they form the basis of 'what is universal in human nature and human ideals.'"
"If primary groups are critical to human social and moral development, and to solidarity with others, then any threat to an individual's contact with significant primary groups will result in problems for the individual and society. Thus, it is very important that the child not be deprived of consistent, long-term contacts in early years." (p. 314)
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931)
A. Although there are several references to it, there is no direct mention of his major work which is his main claim to fame in sociology -- Mind, Self, and Society -- published 3 years after his death in 1934 and really put together from notes taken by his graduate students.
B. Mead himself was a philosopher and two of his most important influences were pragmatist philosopher William James (who also influenced Cooley) and German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt, from whom Mead came to appreciate the role of gestures, symbols, signs in human communication and interaction.
C. The authors do a good job of presenting a very basic aspect of Mead's thought, crucial to the later development of symbolic interactionism, and that is his view of personality development being socially based, involving three distinct stages which all hinge on the concept of "role-taking."
1. Those three stages being the, PLAY, GAME, and GENERALIZED OTHER stages, the last being the most significant. This "generalized other" stage represents the culmination of this process of self development through role-taking. It is the "synthesized view" of others' attitudes and expectations built up over a long period -- primary group interactions especially. I've always thought of the "generalized other" as similar to the conscience or Freud's "superego."
D. The authors go on to note that because of Mead's emphasis on mind and self, we tend to overlook his views on the nature of society. But mind and self only develop in the context of society, society itself being basically an outgrowth of individuals interacting. It was Mead's student, Herbert Blumer, in a seminal essay, "Society as Symbolic Interaction," (1937) who develops more of the societal implication of this theory of personality development.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
A. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of psychoanalysis and the explanation it offers for various psychological disorders, I believe it is important to have a general overview of the Freudian view of the personality structure, and the sociological implications of that view for the relation between the individual and society (or civilization). The sociological dimension comes through clearly in his book, Civilization and Its Discontents (1930).
B. Let me defer to the authors' succinct overview of the three elements of the personality structure -- the id, ego, and super-ego. (See bottom, p. 330-331)
C. In terms of the impact of civilization, he saw it as coercive, controlling our basic instinctual drives -- eros - sexual & thanatos - aggressive or death instinct -- something that in the end makes us sick or unhappy.
That brings me up to the handout, "Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge," which I will address in class next week.
LECTURE NOTES: Since we do not have much class time left, I will be blogging some lecture notes over the next week and a half. So be looking for these and be sure to print them out or copy them and insert them with your other class notes.
Chapter 13: Society, Self, and Mind (Cooley, Mead, and Freud)
A. The authors open this chapter with a point that I would have to agree with: "When sociology teachers complain that they are having trouble getting their students to think sociologically, they usually mean getting them to think about society as a whole. In the United States we are more attuned to individual-level explanations." (p. 310)
1. And Cooley, Mead, and Freud certainly provide insight into that individual-level (or group-level) interaction, although I would also insist that they were aware of that larger social environment which plays a role in the development (and dysfunction) of individuals.
Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929)
A. He grew up, was educated, and taught at the University of Michigan. In 1918 he became president of the American Sociological Society. His work helped lay the foundation for social psychology and symbolic interactionism.
1. He was influenced by Spencer but did not agree with his more wholistic organismic analogy. He argued that Spencer did not fully appreciate the significance of individual interaction.
B. "Sociological concepts, for Cooley, must be anchored in the real social world of interacting individuals." (p. 312) At one point, the authors describe Cooley's understanding of social life as "mentalistic."
C. Three key concepts for Cooley:
1. "Looking-glass self" -- that our sense of who we are is developed in reference to others. You understand yourself, who you are, in terms of your understanding of what others think or imagine you to be.
2. How people choose to define you, look upon you -- as a criminal, a nerd, a leader, etc. -- will strongly influence your identity. Creates what Cooley may have been the first to call a "self-fulfilling prophecy," which I would argue is especially relevant when talking about the identity of racial and ethnic minorities.
3. And these individual interactions usually take place in "primary groups." (See definition of primary groups at bottom p. 313) And "Because primary groups are the major, universal groups, they form the basis of 'what is universal in human nature and human ideals.'"
"If primary groups are critical to human social and moral development, and to solidarity with others, then any threat to an individual's contact with significant primary groups will result in problems for the individual and society. Thus, it is very important that the child not be deprived of consistent, long-term contacts in early years." (p. 314)
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931)
A. Although there are several references to it, there is no direct mention of his major work which is his main claim to fame in sociology -- Mind, Self, and Society -- published 3 years after his death in 1934 and really put together from notes taken by his graduate students.
B. Mead himself was a philosopher and two of his most important influences were pragmatist philosopher William James (who also influenced Cooley) and German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt, from whom Mead came to appreciate the role of gestures, symbols, signs in human communication and interaction.
C. The authors do a good job of presenting a very basic aspect of Mead's thought, crucial to the later development of symbolic interactionism, and that is his view of personality development being socially based, involving three distinct stages which all hinge on the concept of "role-taking."
1. Those three stages being the, PLAY, GAME, and GENERALIZED OTHER stages, the last being the most significant. This "generalized other" stage represents the culmination of this process of self development through role-taking. It is the "synthesized view" of others' attitudes and expectations built up over a long period -- primary group interactions especially. I've always thought of the "generalized other" as similar to the conscience or Freud's "superego."
D. The authors go on to note that because of Mead's emphasis on mind and self, we tend to overlook his views on the nature of society. But mind and self only develop in the context of society, society itself being basically an outgrowth of individuals interacting. It was Mead's student, Herbert Blumer, in a seminal essay, "Society as Symbolic Interaction," (1937) who develops more of the societal implication of this theory of personality development.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
A. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of psychoanalysis and the explanation it offers for various psychological disorders, I believe it is important to have a general overview of the Freudian view of the personality structure, and the sociological implications of that view for the relation between the individual and society (or civilization). The sociological dimension comes through clearly in his book, Civilization and Its Discontents (1930).
B. Let me defer to the authors' succinct overview of the three elements of the personality structure -- the id, ego, and super-ego. (See bottom, p. 330-331)
C. In terms of the impact of civilization, he saw it as coercive, controlling our basic instinctual drives -- eros - sexual & thanatos - aggressive or death instinct -- something that in the end makes us sick or unhappy.
That brings me up to the handout, "Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge," which I will address in class next week.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Family Activity IV & "Game Plan" for the Rest of the Semester
FAMILY ACTIVITY IV: Pareto, Michels, and Veblen's sociological theories of politics and economics (covered in Chapters 9 & 10) are considered largely theoretical responses to Marx's radical critique of capitalism. I want each of the families to identify ONE point from EACH of these three thinkers that reflects their theoretical response to Marx. And among these three points, I want each family to designate ONE of them as the most relevant for understanding the nature of so-called Marxist or communist societies that emerged in the 20th century, such as the Soviet Union.
I will give you time to begin brainstorming this on Tuesday, 4/14, and then again on Thursday, 4/16. A family spokesperson should be designated to write up your findings (1-2 pages) and present these in class on Tuesday, 4/21. I will read these over and post edited versions on the blog from which possible final exam questions may come. This activity is worth 4 points and you have to participate to earn those points. (No bonus points on this one, but you will have a bonus point opportunity when I ask the families to make up questions for the final exam.)
So, between now and next Tuesday, let me encourage you to read Chapters 9 & 10, so you can contribute to the discussion in your family.
"GAME PLAN" FOR REST OF THE SEMESTER:
We will try to cover the following chapters in the text: Chapters 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19. So, I expect you to read that material. I will let you know in class when we will talk about each of those chapters.
I will also hand out a couple essays: (1) Alex Inkeles on Functionalism, and (2) An essay I did as a graduate student on Max Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" (this will be in lieu of reading Chapter 16 in the text).
Finally, during the last few classes we will focus on a portion of Prof. E. A. Ahrens' lecture notes entitled, "Order and Disorder in Society." I will put three copies of this on reserve in the library. Our final short essay (III) will involve this material, and I should be getting a write-up of that assignment to you in roughly two weeks.
Of course, don't forget that Essay II is due next Thursday, 4/16, and the paper due on THURSDAY, APRIL 23rd, for which you need to prepare a brief (10-minute) overview for presentation in class.
PLEASE REFER TO THIS BLOG POST FOR THIS ROAD MAP(OR "GAME PLAN," if you prefer)TO THE REST OF THIS SEMESTER.
I will give you time to begin brainstorming this on Tuesday, 4/14, and then again on Thursday, 4/16. A family spokesperson should be designated to write up your findings (1-2 pages) and present these in class on Tuesday, 4/21. I will read these over and post edited versions on the blog from which possible final exam questions may come. This activity is worth 4 points and you have to participate to earn those points. (No bonus points on this one, but you will have a bonus point opportunity when I ask the families to make up questions for the final exam.)
So, between now and next Tuesday, let me encourage you to read Chapters 9 & 10, so you can contribute to the discussion in your family.
"GAME PLAN" FOR REST OF THE SEMESTER:
We will try to cover the following chapters in the text: Chapters 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19. So, I expect you to read that material. I will let you know in class when we will talk about each of those chapters.
I will also hand out a couple essays: (1) Alex Inkeles on Functionalism, and (2) An essay I did as a graduate student on Max Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" (this will be in lieu of reading Chapter 16 in the text).
Finally, during the last few classes we will focus on a portion of Prof. E. A. Ahrens' lecture notes entitled, "Order and Disorder in Society." I will put three copies of this on reserve in the library. Our final short essay (III) will involve this material, and I should be getting a write-up of that assignment to you in roughly two weeks.
Of course, don't forget that Essay II is due next Thursday, 4/16, and the paper due on THURSDAY, APRIL 23rd, for which you need to prepare a brief (10-minute) overview for presentation in class.
PLEASE REFER TO THIS BLOG POST FOR THIS ROAD MAP(OR "GAME PLAN," if you prefer)TO THE REST OF THIS SEMESTER.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Family Activity III Winners
After careful consideration of the family submissions, I have decided to award bonus points to the Yellow and Green Families. I thought both points that the Yellow family submitted were good, and one point from the Green family (which gave a different interpretation of the "Dot-Communist Manifesto") was also worthy of a couple bonus points. Unfortunately, the Blue family's points were weak, especially on "Karl's New Manifesto." So, below are the points as described by each family, with some editing on my part. Anything I may ask about this exercise on the final exam will come from the description of these points below.
GREEN FAMILY
A capitalist society like ours revolves around purchases, especially of necessities such as food, shelter, water, etc., which must be paid for with money. In addition, we purchase things to satisfy our desires and for leisure. We pay to go to see a movie, to read a magazine, etc. The Internet provides an interesting dimension to this issue, where anyone with access to a computer can essentially read a magazine or listen to music for free. In Andrew Sullivan's article, though dated, this issue is discussed. He discusses how our "public space" (has) become increasingly private," yet the web has allowed us to become "equal citizens far more possible than ever." If Marx were alive today he would contend that the dream of being a whole person or to be "ends, not means" could in essence be illustrated through how we use the Internet. However, contemporary capitalist society does not want us to be able to go on the Internet and download music for free. It does not want us to read magazine articles without paying for a subscription. This takes away profit which is the driving force of capitalism. We think that it is important to mention that Napster, and other free online music sharing websites, have continually lost the battle in court to provide free music, and the most dominant music sharing programs on our computers today, at least the ones that function, are the ones where you have to pay with a credit card. So, perhaps capitalism will triumph after all.
YELLOW FAMILY
One interesting point from the article that can offer insight into contemporary capitalist society is the idea of public property in "Dot-Communist Manifesto." In traditional capitalist societies, private property is vital and necessary for societal functioning. The author used the Internet as an example of how public property can work, and how it can be a positive institution. The author talks about how motives other than profit become important to people, unlike capitalist society where "cash is king" and we are all motivated by our own self-interest. The author observes, "Private property is about as fashionable in the online world as public property is in the offline world." In the online world, private property is not profitable. Websites that require payment for membership are not popular, unlike those where anyone can access and be enriched by the content of the site. Private property contributes to alienation, while public property brings people together in this sense. The article offers a real life example of how public property is thriving on the Internet, which is one of the biggest and newest markets available. Could this catch on in other areas? Is public property really that bad? These are questions the article, although humorously, makes the reader think about.
In "Karl's New Manifesto" David Brooks brings up a point that is highly relevant for modern capitalist society. He ends the article talking about the striking structural differences between families of different socioeconomic classes. He gives the statistic that today only one-third of "poor" families are headed by married couples. This leaves an overwhelming majority of poor children to be raised by single parents. Children who do not live with both biological parents are less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to get a job, more likely to get in trouble with the law, less likely to raise their own children in a two-parent household, etc.That children who come from poor families are more likely to have disadvantages gives us an interesting take on capitalist society. Marx said that capitalists, by virtue of what it means to be a capitalist, "sow the seeds of their own destruction." The interesting insight is that, in this scenario, capitalist society is potentially creating a class of people that is perpetually struggling to catch up. Brooks suggests that this undereducated class is equivalent to the oppressed working class of Marx's "Manifesto" and the frustration created by this inherited inequality could prove to be dangerous for the educated capitalists.
That's it. So Yellow family members earn 4 bonus points, and the Green family members 2 bonus points.
After the break we will select new families, which I guess will end the Yellow family's dynasty.....
GREEN FAMILY
A capitalist society like ours revolves around purchases, especially of necessities such as food, shelter, water, etc., which must be paid for with money. In addition, we purchase things to satisfy our desires and for leisure. We pay to go to see a movie, to read a magazine, etc. The Internet provides an interesting dimension to this issue, where anyone with access to a computer can essentially read a magazine or listen to music for free. In Andrew Sullivan's article, though dated, this issue is discussed. He discusses how our "public space" (has) become increasingly private," yet the web has allowed us to become "equal citizens far more possible than ever." If Marx were alive today he would contend that the dream of being a whole person or to be "ends, not means" could in essence be illustrated through how we use the Internet. However, contemporary capitalist society does not want us to be able to go on the Internet and download music for free. It does not want us to read magazine articles without paying for a subscription. This takes away profit which is the driving force of capitalism. We think that it is important to mention that Napster, and other free online music sharing websites, have continually lost the battle in court to provide free music, and the most dominant music sharing programs on our computers today, at least the ones that function, are the ones where you have to pay with a credit card. So, perhaps capitalism will triumph after all.
YELLOW FAMILY
One interesting point from the article that can offer insight into contemporary capitalist society is the idea of public property in "Dot-Communist Manifesto." In traditional capitalist societies, private property is vital and necessary for societal functioning. The author used the Internet as an example of how public property can work, and how it can be a positive institution. The author talks about how motives other than profit become important to people, unlike capitalist society where "cash is king" and we are all motivated by our own self-interest. The author observes, "Private property is about as fashionable in the online world as public property is in the offline world." In the online world, private property is not profitable. Websites that require payment for membership are not popular, unlike those where anyone can access and be enriched by the content of the site. Private property contributes to alienation, while public property brings people together in this sense. The article offers a real life example of how public property is thriving on the Internet, which is one of the biggest and newest markets available. Could this catch on in other areas? Is public property really that bad? These are questions the article, although humorously, makes the reader think about.
In "Karl's New Manifesto" David Brooks brings up a point that is highly relevant for modern capitalist society. He ends the article talking about the striking structural differences between families of different socioeconomic classes. He gives the statistic that today only one-third of "poor" families are headed by married couples. This leaves an overwhelming majority of poor children to be raised by single parents. Children who do not live with both biological parents are less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to get a job, more likely to get in trouble with the law, less likely to raise their own children in a two-parent household, etc.That children who come from poor families are more likely to have disadvantages gives us an interesting take on capitalist society. Marx said that capitalists, by virtue of what it means to be a capitalist, "sow the seeds of their own destruction." The interesting insight is that, in this scenario, capitalist society is potentially creating a class of people that is perpetually struggling to catch up. Brooks suggests that this undereducated class is equivalent to the oppressed working class of Marx's "Manifesto" and the frustration created by this inherited inequality could prove to be dangerous for the educated capitalists.
That's it. So Yellow family members earn 4 bonus points, and the Green family members 2 bonus points.
After the break we will select new families, which I guess will end the Yellow family's dynasty.....
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Family Activity III
Before I describe this latst family activity, I want to remind you that the previous post on this blog (Monday, 3/16) contains the family questions for the Midterm Exam, which you need to study for tomorrow's exam.
FAMILY ACTIVITY III: Now that you've been exposed to the radical ideas of Marx and Marxism in Chapters 5 & 6 in our text, I want you to consider what the two "tongue-in-cheek" attempts to apply Marx to our time -- "Dot-Communist Manifesto" and "Karl's New Manifesto" (which I will hand out in class tomorrow) -- have to offer in terms of insight into contemporary capitalist society. More specifically, I want each of the families to pick out TWO points from ONE or BOTH commentaries which, aside from their attempt at humor, you believe do in fact offer significant insights into modern capitalist society. A spokesperson for each family will present your findings in class on Thursday, 3/26, and each family must turn in a one-page description and defense of your choices at that time. I will read and consider these and award bonus points to the family or families that come up with the two best points overall. This exercise is worth 4 points for all participating family members, and I will award 2 bonus points for each of the best points presented.
You need to read Chapter 6 in the text and especially these two commentaries for next week. I will give the families class time on Tuesday, 3/24 to confer about which points you want to present.
WHEN WE COME BACK AFTER SPRING BREAK, WE WILL PICK NEW FAMILIES FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SEMESTER.
FAMILY ACTIVITY III: Now that you've been exposed to the radical ideas of Marx and Marxism in Chapters 5 & 6 in our text, I want you to consider what the two "tongue-in-cheek" attempts to apply Marx to our time -- "Dot-Communist Manifesto" and "Karl's New Manifesto" (which I will hand out in class tomorrow) -- have to offer in terms of insight into contemporary capitalist society. More specifically, I want each of the families to pick out TWO points from ONE or BOTH commentaries which, aside from their attempt at humor, you believe do in fact offer significant insights into modern capitalist society. A spokesperson for each family will present your findings in class on Thursday, 3/26, and each family must turn in a one-page description and defense of your choices at that time. I will read and consider these and award bonus points to the family or families that come up with the two best points overall. This exercise is worth 4 points for all participating family members, and I will award 2 bonus points for each of the best points presented.
You need to read Chapter 6 in the text and especially these two commentaries for next week. I will give the families class time on Tuesday, 3/24 to confer about which points you want to present.
WHEN WE COME BACK AFTER SPRING BREAK, WE WILL PICK NEW FAMILIES FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SEMESTER.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Family Questions for the Midterm
Below are the family questions I accepted from those submitted last week. You'll note that I have done some editing of the questions and answers. Remember, these questions will be on the midterm exam which is coming up this Thursday, 3/19.
YELLOW FAMILY ( Jessica G. Amanda, Claire, Justina) earn 4 points, plus one bonus point.
1. Describe DEDUCTIVE and INDUCTIVE reasoning, and which ONE of these two types of reasoning do sociologists use the most? (3)
ANSWER: Deductive proceeds from the general to the particular, whereas inductive proceeds from particular observations to some general explanation or generalization. Sociologists use inductive reasoning more.
2. How does Durkheim explain how in modern society individuals are more autonomous at the same time they are more dependent on society? (1)
ANSWER: The growth of the division of labor, which leads to greater specialization and greater dependence on others.
3. How did I suggest Spencer's view on the place of women in society reveals a serious weakness in his evolutionary and functional model of society? (2)
ANSWER: It puts him in the position of rationalizing the place of women in society, suggesting it is due to natural evolution rather than social custom.
GREEN FAMILY (Jessica H., Grant, Megan, Kristen) earn 4 points.
1. In regard to Comte's "conservatism," I noted that it was NOT a (a) _________________________ conservatism but a (b) ____________________________ conservatism. (2)
ANSWER: (a) reactionary or status quo
(b) anticipatory
2. Identify TWO of the three basics of Durkheim's "moral education," which he argued was ultimately necessary to ensure "orgnaic solidarity" in modern society. (2)
ANSWER: Any two of the following: (1) devotion to society or collective ideals, (2) discipline, (3) autonomy.
BLUE FAMILY (Frank, Courtney, Lewis, Matt, Natalie) earn 4 points.
1. What did I note was wrong with the definition of sociological theory presented in the text? (1)
ANSWER: The authors neglected to put SOCIOLOGICAL in bold print.
2. What "impossible obligation" did Max Weber point out in the context of the text's discussion of the relation between ideology and sociology? (1)
ANSWER: That it is impossible for sociologists to look at society with complete objectivity because we are part of society and have personal beliefs about it.
That's all for now. Remember that Essay I re-writes are due tomorrow (if you decide to do it. We will wrap up Chapter 5 on Marx and Engels and perhaps get a bit into Chapter 6, then review for the midterm.
YELLOW FAMILY ( Jessica G. Amanda, Claire, Justina) earn 4 points, plus one bonus point.
1. Describe DEDUCTIVE and INDUCTIVE reasoning, and which ONE of these two types of reasoning do sociologists use the most? (3)
ANSWER: Deductive proceeds from the general to the particular, whereas inductive proceeds from particular observations to some general explanation or generalization. Sociologists use inductive reasoning more.
2. How does Durkheim explain how in modern society individuals are more autonomous at the same time they are more dependent on society? (1)
ANSWER: The growth of the division of labor, which leads to greater specialization and greater dependence on others.
3. How did I suggest Spencer's view on the place of women in society reveals a serious weakness in his evolutionary and functional model of society? (2)
ANSWER: It puts him in the position of rationalizing the place of women in society, suggesting it is due to natural evolution rather than social custom.
GREEN FAMILY (Jessica H., Grant, Megan, Kristen) earn 4 points.
1. In regard to Comte's "conservatism," I noted that it was NOT a (a) _________________________ conservatism but a (b) ____________________________ conservatism. (2)
ANSWER: (a) reactionary or status quo
(b) anticipatory
2. Identify TWO of the three basics of Durkheim's "moral education," which he argued was ultimately necessary to ensure "orgnaic solidarity" in modern society. (2)
ANSWER: Any two of the following: (1) devotion to society or collective ideals, (2) discipline, (3) autonomy.
BLUE FAMILY (Frank, Courtney, Lewis, Matt, Natalie) earn 4 points.
1. What did I note was wrong with the definition of sociological theory presented in the text? (1)
ANSWER: The authors neglected to put SOCIOLOGICAL in bold print.
2. What "impossible obligation" did Max Weber point out in the context of the text's discussion of the relation between ideology and sociology? (1)
ANSWER: That it is impossible for sociologists to look at society with complete objectivity because we are part of society and have personal beliefs about it.
That's all for now. Remember that Essay I re-writes are due tomorrow (if you decide to do it. We will wrap up Chapter 5 on Marx and Engels and perhaps get a bit into Chapter 6, then review for the midterm.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Marx Passage on Historical Materialism & Reminders
As I promised, below are the actual words of Marx which are considered THE classical statement of his HISTORICAL MATERIALISM (in contrast to the paraphrase of this in the text on p. 126):
"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; relations of production that correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their being that determines their consciousness."
(from Preface to "The Critique of Political Economy," 1859)
Although the above passage suggests that Marx was a hard-core "economic determinist" (the idea that the economy determines everything), some commentators (with whom I agree) have noted that it was really only in capitalism that he felt the economy had such a determinant influence on all other aspects of society.
I will try to wrap up Chapter 5 and Marx next Tuesday, 3/17. I will also make time for review for the Midterm Exam on Thursday, 3/19. In the meantime, remember I will post the family questions I accept and will be on that exam sometime on Monday.
"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; relations of production that correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their being that determines their consciousness."
(from Preface to "The Critique of Political Economy," 1859)
Although the above passage suggests that Marx was a hard-core "economic determinist" (the idea that the economy determines everything), some commentators (with whom I agree) have noted that it was really only in capitalism that he felt the economy had such a determinant influence on all other aspects of society.
I will try to wrap up Chapter 5 and Marx next Tuesday, 3/17. I will also make time for review for the Midterm Exam on Thursday, 3/19. In the meantime, remember I will post the family questions I accept and will be on that exam sometime on Monday.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Family Activity: Making Up Questions for the Midterm Exam
As I announced in class this morning, we are going to have our midterm exam on Thursday, March 19th, and in preparation for that I want each of the families to come up with FOUR SHORT-ANSWER questions (AND ANSWERS)from anything we've covered in class since the beginning of the term (which would also include any lecture material posted on the blog or the recent "Yellow Family on Spencer and Sumner, along with my own commentary"). I will give you some time to confer with your families on Thursday when, hopefully, you can come to some agreement about which four questions you want to submit for consideration. I will need those questions NO LATER THAN NOON FRIDAY (3/13). You may submit them via email. I will try to accept at least two questions from each family, for which you everyone will earn 4 activity points. For every additional question I accept, I will award a bonus point, so you may earn up to two bonus points for this exercise.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Yellow Family on Spencer & Sumner, along with my own commentary
Below are the Yellow Family's remarks on Spencer and Sumner. I interjected some comments in parentheses. Also, I added some comments at the end of Yellow family's remarks:
Proposition 3 Spencer definitely agrees with. It says that society is made up of relationships and institutions and individuals are a part of this society and must fulfill society's needs through playing certain roles and occupying certain statuses. Spencer says, "Society becomes a separate entity as people take on specialized roles to fulfill social needs." (65) He means that the individuals in a society create a working society because they take on roles, such as doctors, lawyers, and even motherhood which allows others to do their jobs and provide services other persons cannot provide. It is a fact that these institutions exist, not just individuals, that creates our ability to live and function in what we know as society. (But Spencer would NOT agree with the first part of that proposition: "The individual is an abstraction..." -- more on this in my commentary below.)
Spencer agrees with Proposition 4 which states: "The parts of a society are interdependent and interrelated. Customs, beliefs, and institutions are organically intertwined so that changing or remaking one part will undermine the complex relationships maintaining the stability of society as a whole" reflects aspects of his organic analogy. This organic analogy says, "As the organizational structure increases the differentiation arises, the functions, or activities, of the parts become more specialized. But these different activities are interdependent -- that is, they are 'so related as to make one another possible.' In other words, the parts of society, like the parts of an organism, function to maintain the structure of the whole"(69). As the population increases within a growing industrial society, and people begin to diverge more with their occupations and practices, such specialization makes the variety of jobs necessary for an efficient society's operation. When people begin to narrow their focus to a few aspects of living, then they depend on others to provide the goods and services relied upon to function in society. For example, most people do not grow their own food, while farmers don't usually manufacture the trucks that carry their produce to market. In order for a growing society to continue its progress, people are needed to fill out the positions others cannot. Together, many specializations make up a complete society. (which sounds a lot like Durkheim's argument in The Division of Labor in Society)
Proposition 10 directly relates to the authors' analysis of Spencer and Sumner. The proposition states that: "The conservatives feared that equality would destroy the "natural" and time honored agencies by which values were passed on from one generation to another. Hierarchy was necessary to the family, the Church, and the State, without which social stability was impossible." Spencer promoted the idea of the laissez-faire doctrine. He believed in little government intervention, as opposed to institutions set up to create equality. Spencer believed that hierarchy within an institution would be established, but it would be established through natural processes. In society, Spencer says, "The law of organization dictated a 'function to each organ and each organ to its own function' in both the social and natural world." (65) Individuals all have different roles to perform; if they are allowed to perform these roles, a natural hierarchy, which is necessary for stability, will be established.
MOST RELEVANT point for Spencer and Sumner is the idea of "survival of the fittest"/laissez-faire doctrine. This is key in understanding the division of labor and how a modern society should work. (That is, a modern CAPITALIST society.) Spencer believed that a free market economy demonstrated progress towards peace and well-being. This idea is relevant because of its reality in today's marketplace. Spencer and Sumner believed that "Capitalism and industrialism, unfettered by government interference, were the motors of social progress." (88)...
(I would just add, that the "relevance" of this point is more relevance to capitalist IDEOLOGY, not necessarily the REALITY of contemporary capitalism, which has flourished in part due to government intevention and regulation.)
LEAST RELEVANT aspect of Spencer and Sumner for understanding modern society is their ideas of race and gender. They did not regard men and women as equal; in fact, Spencer says, "to regard men and women as mentally alike, is as untrue as that they are alike bodily" (74). This is clearly out of step with modern society. It seems like Spencer and Sumner were repeating the status quo of society at the time instead of challenging it. In regard to race, it is stated that "some societies or some individuals have not progressed as far or as fast, or in the same manner, as some others." (78) They refer to different races as "lesser breeds." This is clearly not acceptable in our modern society....All are valuable and vital members in our organic society, regardless of race and gender.
And now for some of my own commentary:
A. It is true that Spencer made ample use of the organic analogy; he saw sociology and biology as closely linked. BUT on p. 69 the authors list several similarities and DISSIMILARITIES between society and biological organisms. A fundamental difference hinges on the idea that the individual has more freedom than any part of the biological organism. Recognizing these differences is key to understanding how Spencer can embrace political individualism and laissez-faire economics, along with the more wholistic view of society as an organism. SEE ESPECIALLY PASSAGE FROM SPENCER QUOTED NEAR THE BOTTOM OF P. 79.
B. Spencer's views on women (and less so on race) bring up what I would argue is a serious weakness in his evolutionary and functional model of society and social change, which is that it puts him in the position of endorsing (or rationalizing) any aspect of the existing society and claiming it contributes to evolution and is functionally necessary.
1. Despite his initial position favoring equal rights for women, in the end he argued that women should accept their status based on their different biology. Women evolved to be child bearers and child rearers, not thinkers and leaders (as if their being locked out of leadership roles happened naturally). The fact is that social customs more than biology dictated what roles women could take.
2. And regarding race, although one might argue that Spencer's views on race have been misinterpreted -- that he did not promote the racial superiority of white Europeans -- he did argue against miscegenation (mixed-race unions) on bogus racist grounds. See bottom p. 78 - top p. 79.
C. And don't forget Sumner's "Social Darwinism" and how it also justified racial and gender inequality.
That's all for now. Make sure to incorporate the above comments in your notes for the class.
Proposition 3 Spencer definitely agrees with. It says that society is made up of relationships and institutions and individuals are a part of this society and must fulfill society's needs through playing certain roles and occupying certain statuses. Spencer says, "Society becomes a separate entity as people take on specialized roles to fulfill social needs." (65) He means that the individuals in a society create a working society because they take on roles, such as doctors, lawyers, and even motherhood which allows others to do their jobs and provide services other persons cannot provide. It is a fact that these institutions exist, not just individuals, that creates our ability to live and function in what we know as society. (But Spencer would NOT agree with the first part of that proposition: "The individual is an abstraction..." -- more on this in my commentary below.)
Spencer agrees with Proposition 4 which states: "The parts of a society are interdependent and interrelated. Customs, beliefs, and institutions are organically intertwined so that changing or remaking one part will undermine the complex relationships maintaining the stability of society as a whole" reflects aspects of his organic analogy. This organic analogy says, "As the organizational structure increases the differentiation arises, the functions, or activities, of the parts become more specialized. But these different activities are interdependent -- that is, they are 'so related as to make one another possible.' In other words, the parts of society, like the parts of an organism, function to maintain the structure of the whole"(69). As the population increases within a growing industrial society, and people begin to diverge more with their occupations and practices, such specialization makes the variety of jobs necessary for an efficient society's operation. When people begin to narrow their focus to a few aspects of living, then they depend on others to provide the goods and services relied upon to function in society. For example, most people do not grow their own food, while farmers don't usually manufacture the trucks that carry their produce to market. In order for a growing society to continue its progress, people are needed to fill out the positions others cannot. Together, many specializations make up a complete society. (which sounds a lot like Durkheim's argument in The Division of Labor in Society)
Proposition 10 directly relates to the authors' analysis of Spencer and Sumner. The proposition states that: "The conservatives feared that equality would destroy the "natural" and time honored agencies by which values were passed on from one generation to another. Hierarchy was necessary to the family, the Church, and the State, without which social stability was impossible." Spencer promoted the idea of the laissez-faire doctrine. He believed in little government intervention, as opposed to institutions set up to create equality. Spencer believed that hierarchy within an institution would be established, but it would be established through natural processes. In society, Spencer says, "The law of organization dictated a 'function to each organ and each organ to its own function' in both the social and natural world." (65) Individuals all have different roles to perform; if they are allowed to perform these roles, a natural hierarchy, which is necessary for stability, will be established.
MOST RELEVANT point for Spencer and Sumner is the idea of "survival of the fittest"/laissez-faire doctrine. This is key in understanding the division of labor and how a modern society should work. (That is, a modern CAPITALIST society.) Spencer believed that a free market economy demonstrated progress towards peace and well-being. This idea is relevant because of its reality in today's marketplace. Spencer and Sumner believed that "Capitalism and industrialism, unfettered by government interference, were the motors of social progress." (88)...
(I would just add, that the "relevance" of this point is more relevance to capitalist IDEOLOGY, not necessarily the REALITY of contemporary capitalism, which has flourished in part due to government intevention and regulation.)
LEAST RELEVANT aspect of Spencer and Sumner for understanding modern society is their ideas of race and gender. They did not regard men and women as equal; in fact, Spencer says, "to regard men and women as mentally alike, is as untrue as that they are alike bodily" (74). This is clearly out of step with modern society. It seems like Spencer and Sumner were repeating the status quo of society at the time instead of challenging it. In regard to race, it is stated that "some societies or some individuals have not progressed as far or as fast, or in the same manner, as some others." (78) They refer to different races as "lesser breeds." This is clearly not acceptable in our modern society....All are valuable and vital members in our organic society, regardless of race and gender.
And now for some of my own commentary:
A. It is true that Spencer made ample use of the organic analogy; he saw sociology and biology as closely linked. BUT on p. 69 the authors list several similarities and DISSIMILARITIES between society and biological organisms. A fundamental difference hinges on the idea that the individual has more freedom than any part of the biological organism. Recognizing these differences is key to understanding how Spencer can embrace political individualism and laissez-faire economics, along with the more wholistic view of society as an organism. SEE ESPECIALLY PASSAGE FROM SPENCER QUOTED NEAR THE BOTTOM OF P. 79.
B. Spencer's views on women (and less so on race) bring up what I would argue is a serious weakness in his evolutionary and functional model of society and social change, which is that it puts him in the position of endorsing (or rationalizing) any aspect of the existing society and claiming it contributes to evolution and is functionally necessary.
1. Despite his initial position favoring equal rights for women, in the end he argued that women should accept their status based on their different biology. Women evolved to be child bearers and child rearers, not thinkers and leaders (as if their being locked out of leadership roles happened naturally). The fact is that social customs more than biology dictated what roles women could take.
2. And regarding race, although one might argue that Spencer's views on race have been misinterpreted -- that he did not promote the racial superiority of white Europeans -- he did argue against miscegenation (mixed-race unions) on bogus racist grounds. See bottom p. 78 - top p. 79.
C. And don't forget Sumner's "Social Darwinism" and how it also justified racial and gender inequality.
That's all for now. Make sure to incorporate the above comments in your notes for the class.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Due Date Revision for Essay I Re-write & Winner of the Family Activity
Because many people were absent Thursday when I handed the essays back and will not have much time to do a re-write next week, I am postponing the due date for the re-write until TUESDAY, MARCH 17TH. And that is a firm date -- no late re-writes will be accepted.
WINNER OF OUR FIRST FAMILY ACTIVITY:
The Yellow family (Amanda, Jessica G., Justina, Claire, and St. Claire) will receive three bonus points for your efforts. I will post your entry on MONDAY (3/9) along with some of my own commentary. Remember, that this is what you need to know from Chapter 3 for the midterm exam.
A couple general observations: I thought all the entries were actually pretty good, and so I believe we'll try to do more of this in the future. However, some were not sufficiently sensitive to some changes in Spencer's views, particularly as regards gender. In terms of his use of the organic analogy, Spencer undoubtedly fits some of the conservative propositions on society such as #3 and #4, but there, too, it also needs to be stressed that he makes room for the individual and his view of society is individualistic in some respects (and a point of attack for Durkheim). I will elaborate on these points on this blog on Monday.
WINNER OF OUR FIRST FAMILY ACTIVITY:
The Yellow family (Amanda, Jessica G., Justina, Claire, and St. Claire) will receive three bonus points for your efforts. I will post your entry on MONDAY (3/9) along with some of my own commentary. Remember, that this is what you need to know from Chapter 3 for the midterm exam.
A couple general observations: I thought all the entries were actually pretty good, and so I believe we'll try to do more of this in the future. However, some were not sufficiently sensitive to some changes in Spencer's views, particularly as regards gender. In terms of his use of the organic analogy, Spencer undoubtedly fits some of the conservative propositions on society such as #3 and #4, but there, too, it also needs to be stressed that he makes room for the individual and his view of society is individualistic in some respects (and a point of attack for Durkheim). I will elaborate on these points on this blog on Monday.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
ESSAY I RE-WRITE
Sociology 340
Essay I (re-write)
3/4/09
A. For anyone who wishes to, but especially for several of you who did poorly on this first essay assignment, I am going to give you an opportunity to re-write this essay and earn up to 5 points. What I want you to do is to re-write the essay in its entirety addressing my criticisms and incorporating aspects of a book review entitled, "Looking Past Number One," which I will hand out in class tomorrow (3/5) along with your graded essays. The review is of a book by the authors of "Habits of the Heart," and I believe it helps to reinforce the main point of the passage that was the focus of this essay assignment.
B. The due date for this re-write is THURSDAY, MARCH 12TH. I want you to hand in the original along with the re-write.
Essay I (re-write)
3/4/09
A. For anyone who wishes to, but especially for several of you who did poorly on this first essay assignment, I am going to give you an opportunity to re-write this essay and earn up to 5 points. What I want you to do is to re-write the essay in its entirety addressing my criticisms and incorporating aspects of a book review entitled, "Looking Past Number One," which I will hand out in class tomorrow (3/5) along with your graded essays. The review is of a book by the authors of "Habits of the Heart," and I believe it helps to reinforce the main point of the passage that was the focus of this essay assignment.
B. The due date for this re-write is THURSDAY, MARCH 12TH. I want you to hand in the original along with the re-write.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Passages From and About Durkheim
Below are the two passges I quoted in class this morning (Tues. 3/3):
First from Durkheim, illustrating the organic analogy and the role of restitutive law in modern society:
"This law (restitutive) definitely plays a role in society analogous to that played by the nervous system in the organism. The latter has as its task, in effect, the regulation of the different functions of the body in such a way as to make them harmonize."
Second, from a previous text I used in this course, which brings out the condition of society Durkheim referred to as "anomie," and why a new morality was needed:
" In general, the anomic state of modern society has led to a relatively unrestrained citizenry, wherein people primarily look out for their own interests and have disregard for those of others....The individual's social part, Durkheim insisted, is just as natural to humans as their individual (self-interest) part. The problems of modern society are due not to a basically anti-social human nature but to the structure of contemporary society, which does not adequately nurture, develop, and sustain the individual's socially oriented part."
And, as I noted in class, in Durkheim's view sociology could play a key role in developing a new morality (a "science of ethics") to cultivate the "individual's socially oriented part." Which at first he thought the occupational group could instill in individuals, but eventually Durkheim advocated a "moral education," also the title of his last work. Note also how I tied this in to the passage from Habits of the Heart, where the authors in attacking our radical individualism and reminding us of our social connection would wholeheartedly endorse Durkheim's point.
That's all for now. Don't forget first thing on Thursday (3/5) I want to hear from a spokesperson for each of the families what you concluded about Chapter 3 on Spencer and Sumner. Also, please turn in a copy of your findings to me. And I will hand back your first essay.
First from Durkheim, illustrating the organic analogy and the role of restitutive law in modern society:
"This law (restitutive) definitely plays a role in society analogous to that played by the nervous system in the organism. The latter has as its task, in effect, the regulation of the different functions of the body in such a way as to make them harmonize."
Second, from a previous text I used in this course, which brings out the condition of society Durkheim referred to as "anomie," and why a new morality was needed:
" In general, the anomic state of modern society has led to a relatively unrestrained citizenry, wherein people primarily look out for their own interests and have disregard for those of others....The individual's social part, Durkheim insisted, is just as natural to humans as their individual (self-interest) part. The problems of modern society are due not to a basically anti-social human nature but to the structure of contemporary society, which does not adequately nurture, develop, and sustain the individual's socially oriented part."
And, as I noted in class, in Durkheim's view sociology could play a key role in developing a new morality (a "science of ethics") to cultivate the "individual's socially oriented part." Which at first he thought the occupational group could instill in individuals, but eventually Durkheim advocated a "moral education," also the title of his last work. Note also how I tied this in to the passage from Habits of the Heart, where the authors in attacking our radical individualism and reminding us of our social connection would wholeheartedly endorse Durkheim's point.
That's all for now. Don't forget first thing on Thursday (3/5) I want to hear from a spokesperson for each of the families what you concluded about Chapter 3 on Spencer and Sumner. Also, please turn in a copy of your findings to me. And I will hand back your first essay.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
FIRST FAMILY ACTIVITY
For this family exercise, I want each of the families to discuss how any THREE of those ten propositions about society I handed out a couple weeks ago relate -- either positively or negatively -- to the authors' analysis of the ideas of Spencer and Sumner in Chapter 3.
Also, I want each family to identify what you believe is the most relevant and least relevant aspect of Spencer and Sumner for understanding modern society.
Each family will prepare a brief one to two-page summary of your findings, which a designated spokesperson will present to the class next week THURSDAY, 3/5.
This exercise is worth 6 points. You must participate to earn the points. I will also award 3 bonus points to the family which does the best job in my estimation. I will post that family's summary on the blog along with some of my own comments, which will be the basis for whatever questions I may ask on the midterm about Chapter 3.
Also, I want each family to identify what you believe is the most relevant and least relevant aspect of Spencer and Sumner for understanding modern society.
Each family will prepare a brief one to two-page summary of your findings, which a designated spokesperson will present to the class next week THURSDAY, 3/5.
This exercise is worth 6 points. You must participate to earn the points. I will also award 3 bonus points to the family which does the best job in my estimation. I will post that family's summary on the blog along with some of my own comments, which will be the basis for whatever questions I may ask on the midterm about Chapter 3.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
First Essay Assignment
SOCIOLOGY 340
ESSAY I
2/19/09
A. I want each of you to discuss the meaning of the passage quoted below from a study of American society entitled, "Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life," and how it relates to class lectures and text readings (Chaps. 1 & 2) on the origin of modern sociology. There are different ways to do this and several relevant points that could be brought out, so do NOT worry that you did not do it the "right" way or that you may have missed some points. As long as you have some confidence that you interpreted the passage appropriately and made some good connections to class material, you should do fine. And remember that class material would also include comments I posted on the blog about our "missing the forest for the trees" exercise.
"We believe that much of the thinking about the self of educated Americans, thinking that has become almost hegemonic in our universities and much of the middle class, is based on inadequate social science, impoverished philosophy, and vacuous theology. There are truths we do not see when we adopt the language of radical individualism. We find ourselves not independently of other people and institutions but through them. We never get to the bottom of our selves on our own. We discover who we are face to face and side by side with others in work, love, and learning. All of our activity goes on in relationships, groups, associations, and communities ordered by institutional structures and interpreted by cultural patterns of meanings. And the positive side of our individualism, our sense of the dignity, worth, and moral autonomy of the individual, is dependent in a thousand ways on a social, cultural, and institutional context that keeps us afloat even when we cannot very well describe it. There is much in our life that we do not control, that we are not even "responsible" for, that we receive as grace or face as tragedy, things Americans habitually prefer not to think about. Finally, we are not simply ends in ourselves, either as individuals or as a society. We are parts of a larger whole that we can neither forget nor imagine in our own image without paying a high price. If we are not to have a self that hangs in the void, slowly twisting in the wind, these are issues we cannot ignore." (p. 84, Habits of the Heart)
hegemonic - ruling or predominant
vacuous - empty, vacant; having or showing a lack of intelligence
B. Your essay should be roughly 3 pages (single-spaced handwritten or double-spaced typewritten). DO NOT POST IT AS A COMMENT ON THE BLOG (although you may post questions about the assignment which I'll try to respond to). If you quote anything from the text in your paper, please indicate the page # in parentheses.
C. This essay is due THURSDAY, FEB. 26TH.
ESSAY I
2/19/09
A. I want each of you to discuss the meaning of the passage quoted below from a study of American society entitled, "Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life," and how it relates to class lectures and text readings (Chaps. 1 & 2) on the origin of modern sociology. There are different ways to do this and several relevant points that could be brought out, so do NOT worry that you did not do it the "right" way or that you may have missed some points. As long as you have some confidence that you interpreted the passage appropriately and made some good connections to class material, you should do fine. And remember that class material would also include comments I posted on the blog about our "missing the forest for the trees" exercise.
"We believe that much of the thinking about the self of educated Americans, thinking that has become almost hegemonic in our universities and much of the middle class, is based on inadequate social science, impoverished philosophy, and vacuous theology. There are truths we do not see when we adopt the language of radical individualism. We find ourselves not independently of other people and institutions but through them. We never get to the bottom of our selves on our own. We discover who we are face to face and side by side with others in work, love, and learning. All of our activity goes on in relationships, groups, associations, and communities ordered by institutional structures and interpreted by cultural patterns of meanings. And the positive side of our individualism, our sense of the dignity, worth, and moral autonomy of the individual, is dependent in a thousand ways on a social, cultural, and institutional context that keeps us afloat even when we cannot very well describe it. There is much in our life that we do not control, that we are not even "responsible" for, that we receive as grace or face as tragedy, things Americans habitually prefer not to think about. Finally, we are not simply ends in ourselves, either as individuals or as a society. We are parts of a larger whole that we can neither forget nor imagine in our own image without paying a high price. If we are not to have a self that hangs in the void, slowly twisting in the wind, these are issues we cannot ignore." (p. 84, Habits of the Heart)
hegemonic - ruling or predominant
vacuous - empty, vacant; having or showing a lack of intelligence
B. Your essay should be roughly 3 pages (single-spaced handwritten or double-spaced typewritten). DO NOT POST IT AS A COMMENT ON THE BLOG (although you may post questions about the assignment which I'll try to respond to). If you quote anything from the text in your paper, please indicate the page # in parentheses.
C. This essay is due THURSDAY, FEB. 26TH.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
"Missing the Forest for the Trees"
The winners of the "missing the forest for the trees" contest are as follows:
Most creative: (tie) "Wedding Business" (Claire B.)& "Washing Dishes" (Matt E.)
Most sociological: (tie) "Judging a Person" (Lewis B.) & "Racism" (Jessica H.)
Each of the above-mentioned individuals will earn 2 bonus points for this exercise. I respect the decision of the class, although I have to say that "washing dishes" really misses the point.
The point of this exercise was to make you consider how the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts, which is premised on the interrelated nature of reality, especially social reality. In this regard, I would say that missing the big picture (the forest) by focusing on details (trees) -- that is, looking at facts as separate and distinct -- is tantamount to misunderstanding. This point is driven home in a book I used this past Interim, "In Defense of Food," by Michael Pollan. He is critical of what he calls "nutritionism," which is based on a reductionist science approach that focuses on nutrients in isolation from the foods which contain them. He makes a plea for us to focus more on whole foods and the context in which these whole foods are grown and marketed. Pollan comments:
"'The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science,' points out Marion Nestle, a New York University nutritionist, 'is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of the food, the food out of the context of the diet, and the diet out of context of the lifestyle.'" then, a bit later --
"...if you're a nutrition scientist you do the only thing you can do given the tools at your disposal: Break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring the subtle interactions and contexts and the fact that the whole may well be more than, or maybe different from, the sum of its parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science." (p. 62)
Finally, the fact is: "...people don't eat nutrients; they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently from the nutrients they contain." (p. 63)
This general point about focusing on the whole and the system of relations that constitute the whole also underlies a point Prof. E. Ahrens (who we will be reading later on) stresses about the nature of explanation in the following commment:
"The essence of explanation is to say what things are and to define them in and through their relations to other phenomena or forms of phenomena."
So, in the final analysis, I would contend that any social theory which misses or ignores the forest for the trees is ultimately inadequate.
PLEASE COPY OR PRINT OUT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND INSERT IT IN YOUR NOTES WHERE I FIRST ADDRESSED THI ISSUE IN THE TEXT.
Most creative: (tie) "Wedding Business" (Claire B.)& "Washing Dishes" (Matt E.)
Most sociological: (tie) "Judging a Person" (Lewis B.) & "Racism" (Jessica H.)
Each of the above-mentioned individuals will earn 2 bonus points for this exercise. I respect the decision of the class, although I have to say that "washing dishes" really misses the point.
The point of this exercise was to make you consider how the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts, which is premised on the interrelated nature of reality, especially social reality. In this regard, I would say that missing the big picture (the forest) by focusing on details (trees) -- that is, looking at facts as separate and distinct -- is tantamount to misunderstanding. This point is driven home in a book I used this past Interim, "In Defense of Food," by Michael Pollan. He is critical of what he calls "nutritionism," which is based on a reductionist science approach that focuses on nutrients in isolation from the foods which contain them. He makes a plea for us to focus more on whole foods and the context in which these whole foods are grown and marketed. Pollan comments:
"'The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science,' points out Marion Nestle, a New York University nutritionist, 'is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of the food, the food out of the context of the diet, and the diet out of context of the lifestyle.'" then, a bit later --
"...if you're a nutrition scientist you do the only thing you can do given the tools at your disposal: Break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring the subtle interactions and contexts and the fact that the whole may well be more than, or maybe different from, the sum of its parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science." (p. 62)
Finally, the fact is: "...people don't eat nutrients; they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently from the nutrients they contain." (p. 63)
This general point about focusing on the whole and the system of relations that constitute the whole also underlies a point Prof. E. Ahrens (who we will be reading later on) stresses about the nature of explanation in the following commment:
"The essence of explanation is to say what things are and to define them in and through their relations to other phenomena or forms of phenomena."
So, in the final analysis, I would contend that any social theory which misses or ignores the forest for the trees is ultimately inadequate.
PLEASE COPY OR PRINT OUT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND INSERT IT IN YOUR NOTES WHERE I FIRST ADDRESSED THI ISSUE IN THE TEXT.
Friday, February 13, 2009
DEADLINE on First Exercise
It is FRIDAY, the 13TH, 10AM and I just checked the blog and noted that several people still have not posted their comments on the first exercise. I am setting an ABSOLUTE DEADLINE of MONDAY, 2/16 by NOON, after which you will not earn the points for this exercise.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Get Your Feet Wet" Exercise
Welcome to the Soc. 340 course blog for this semester (Spring '09). Below is a description of what I call a "get your feet wet" exercise to get your minds thinking theoretically and get you used to commenting on this blog, which you will be asked to do throughout this semester.
"Get Your Feet Wet" Exercise: In the Preface of our text, the authors refer to what they call the "forest and trees" problem (p. xxiv), which I believe should really be worded: "missing the forest for the trees." For this exercise I want each of you to post an example of this problem (which can be invented if you can't think of one you may have run across in another course or other reading or even real life) OTHER THAN one discussed by the authors in the Preface. I also want you to address the question of why this is a "problem." I am only looking for one or two paragraphs (NO dissertations). Please post your comments by next THURSDAY, FEB. 12th. This exercise is worth 4 points.
"Get Your Feet Wet" Exercise: In the Preface of our text, the authors refer to what they call the "forest and trees" problem (p. xxiv), which I believe should really be worded: "missing the forest for the trees." For this exercise I want each of you to post an example of this problem (which can be invented if you can't think of one you may have run across in another course or other reading or even real life) OTHER THAN one discussed by the authors in the Preface. I also want you to address the question of why this is a "problem." I am only looking for one or two paragraphs (NO dissertations). Please post your comments by next THURSDAY, FEB. 12th. This exercise is worth 4 points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)