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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)