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.

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.

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.

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.

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.