Below are the questions (and answers) I accepted from the families, with some editing on my part. Remember, these questions will be on the final exam.
BLUE FAMILY (Lauren, Kelly, Tim, Wilson) earn 8 pts., plus 1 bonus point.
1. As the authors noted in Chapter 16 and I noted in my paper on Max Horkheimer's book, "Eclipse of Reason," what do these critical theorists see as the difference between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE REASON? (2)
ANSWER: Subjective reason is concerned with means and ends; with the adequacy of procedures to achieve purposes which are more or less taken for granted and supposedly self-explanatory. Objective reason refers to reason as an instrument for determining social ends. It insists that fundamental concepts such as truth, justice, right, have meaning and are discoverable in the world. It also encompasses a critical perspective.
2. Identify and briefly describe the THREE basic elements of the psyche that Freud identified. (6)
ANSWER: Id - unconscious, impulse; source of psychic energy which strives for pleasure, gratification. Infant is all id.
Super-ego - control element, which includes moral norms that govern conduct; the prescriptions and proscriptions (dos and don'ts) that society seeks to teach an individual.
Ego - the conscious intelligence that referees, or is the executor between the id and super-ego. In a healthy individual, the ego strikes a balance between impulse and control.
3. What is another term used for Parsons' concept of equilibrium? (1)
ANSWER: homeostasis
GREEN FAMILY (Kat, T.J., Brianna, William) earn 8pts. plus 1 bonus point.
1. Briefly describe what Ahrens means by suggesting that civilization is a by-product of action or work? (1)
ANSWER: As human beings grappled with problems of survival, they developed objects, inventions which became the basis for civilized life.
2. How did Merton distinguish between MANIFEST and LATENT FUNCTIONS? (2)
ANSWER: Manifest function is the observed or intended outcome, while latent function is the unintended or unrecognized result.
3. What is Michel's "iron law of oligarchy?" (1)
ANSWER: that all human organizations tend to be ruled by a few.
ORANGE FAMILY: (Terry, Stephanie, Katie) earn 8 pts., plus 1 bonus point.
1. In the context of my lecture notes on Weber's position on the value question which were posted on the blog, identify and briefly describe the compromise position adopted by American sociologists in the 1960s. (2)
ANSWER: "let's be honest" - that sociologists need to openly admit to the biases they hold so that readers can keep that in mind when evaluating their work.
2. Briefly describe Cooley's "looking-glass self" concept, and give an example. (2)
ANSWER: Our sense of self, of who we are, is developed in reference to others -- that you understand yourself in terms of your understanding of what others think or imagine you to be -- or attitudes and expectations of others are a key to who you are. Example: if others see you as a criminal or expect you to be a criminal, you are likely to develop a criminal identity.
3. Briefly describe DuBois's idea of "double-consciousness." (2)
ANSWER: He spoke of his "twoness" -- an American, a Negro, two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body -- being American and African American at the same time.
RED FAMILY: (Holly, Peter, Alex, Jamar) earn 8 pts.
1. What did DuBois believe to be the basic element in social organization? (1)
ANSWER: oppression (also referred to as the "manure theory of social organization")
2. Veblen argued that the governing boards of higher learning in America were mainly concerned with the 4 p's. Name TWO of these 4 p's. (2)
ANSWER: any 2 of the following: (1) publicity, (2) plant, (3) prestige, (4) perpetuation.
_______________________________
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Lecture Notes: "Order and Disorder in Society" III
F. Objects, in fact, are crucial to human existence: as (1) the MEANS to life, (2) the CONTENT of life, and (3) the MEDIUM in which life is lived:
1. As the MEANS to life, Ahrens distinguishes three facets: (a) PHYSICALLY, objects are crucial, obviously, to our very physical existence, comfort, health, security, etc.; (b) MENTALLY, objects are also important to our mind life -- developing our intelligence, knowledge requires access to pens, paper, books, microscopes, computers, etc., etc.; (c) ACTION -- objects are significant to realizing human purposes, whether it be health, industry, communicaions, etc.
2. As the CONTENT of life, our lives are organized about them. And it is through developing and maintaining objects that we become who we are -- how we become teachers, doctors, farmers, mechanics, etc.
3. As the MEDIUM in which life is lived -- the creation of homes, roads, markets, industry has given us a new world (with a new body) in which to live. The development of civilization cannot be thought of apart from the development of objects. Civilization is the electricity, airplans, drugs, roads, etc., etc.
G. So, the development/evolution of society involves action or work with objects. It was not something planned but grew as humans modified their world, developed new objects, and these objects became organized. (At this point Ahrens begins to sketch his view of the development of civilization.)
H. PRIMITIVE society was largely focused on meeting basic survival needs and had little object development to sustain cultural life. But that changed with the development of agriculture, which happened largely by accident, and represented the first major modification of human life. It became the dominant occupation around which social life will increasingly become organized.
I. AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY
1. At some point this society required a permanent settlement -- Human life became bound up with plant and animal life and identified with a certain land or territory.
2. New objects were developed, especially to facilitate the activities of agriculture -- barns, tools, granaries, fences for animals, the house, etc.. Among these, the HOUSE occupies a crucial place. See first paragraph, p.167, on the house as a central object of agricultural society, and what it made possible.
3. Increased agricultural production, settled pattern of life, naturally led to increase in population. Which, in turn, meant more land needed to be cleared, more homes built.
4. There was also a qualitative change -- suggests move from magic, frightening images of primitive people, to gods with a human character. People began to beseech these gods for help.
5. But it was mainly in its objectification that agricultural life differed. The center of agricultural life shifted outward; life became organized not just around the family but around objects -- farm, fields, livestock.
6. While primitive people lived for the present, agricultural people began to think in terms of a past, and especially of a future -- that corporate or object development made this possible.
7. Order, solidarity, grew out of that stage -- agricultural tasks called for mutual aid -- "Among neighbors, animals were interbred, tools borrowed, objects bartered and exchanged -- all of which constituted the "stuff" of their relations."
8. Tribal feelings gave way to community feelings -- people became known for their village or region.
9. Their language was shaped by the objects, sights, and sounds of their world. Songs and stories celebrated seasons, work, mountains, streams -- objects of significance. Plants and animals figure among agricultural people's most important aesthetic objects; the shade tree or the fields planted by their ancestors take on great meaning.
WORK AND CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT: PART II
A. Even considering all of the above, the object development of agricultural society was rudimentary. They had limited means of power and knowledge to develop much beyond rudimentary objects, certainly by the standard of our modern industrial society.
B. The development of objects of diverse design (often for relgious or military purposes) led to a more specialized craft life, using a range of new materials. At this point, the division of labor becomes more pronounced and we see the beginnings of economic institutionalization and ultimately the city.
1. Work life branched out like a tree -- a process Ahrens calls "INDIVIDUATION." Activities were separate yet interdependent, as if performed by a single person, but many were involved -- eg., the making of a wagon depended not just on the wagon maker, but the tool maker, the iron worker, the lumberman, etc.
C. Whereas the transition from primitive to agricultural may have been accidental, the transition from agricultural to craft was more a "natural growth continuity."
D. "...the development of craft marked a shift of the person's thought and energies from tending plants and animals to object creation. Instead of serving agricultural and biological needs, work activity as object-making liberated itself and assumed a life of its own." (p. 180)
1. The aesthetic motive entered object design, especially in the field of architecture.
E. THE CITY -- Ahrens acknowledges the contradictory evaluations of the city, but there can be no doubt that it represented another significant step in the advance of civilization. See first paragraph, p. 182.
1. What was ultimately responsible for this was CRAFT -- craft involving imagination, skill, knowledge of materials, planning, rational procedure -- it is an activity crucial to the development of objective mind life. Out of this comes systems of writing and measurement.
2. Writing was especially significant, because it served as a new medium of mind continuity -- allows institutional system, the city, society to become objects of reflection. Ultimately leads to the creation of LAW and the STATE -- "The life of custom gave way to law, ... along with the rational formulation of governmental institutions."
a.) Designers of objects became designers of law.
3. So, the city gave rise to political society in which we sought to control human destiny. (All of the above, suggesting a different view of the origin of the state from the "social contract view.")
WORK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE OR ORDERED LIFE: Part III: Outer Organization and the Structure of Modern Society
A. The industrial revolution and the development of machine power to supplement human power, gave rise to modern corporate society -- the highest form of corporate life yet to be achieved.
1. "While family and local institutions exist today, they no longer are the dominant forms of institutional life. We now live our lives essentially in a system of institutions that are national and international in scope." (p. 189)
a.) Life issues in the ends of the great community in which all local communities have been incorporated. Cities become more interdependent. Farmers now produce not just for local markets but for national and international markets.
2. Although this modern physical development has not necessarily given rise to a more moral society or life (indeed, it seems more immoral than moral), Ahrens contends that this outward development has a moral root -- that it increases the person's capacities and powers of action.
3. Ahrens recognizes that among the problems this new corporate society has given rise to is that it has drastically changed the nature of human relations, a point most sociologists emphasize. As Ahrens observes, sociologists talk about the breakdown of "primary relations" and the increasing dominance of "secondary relations." See pp. 196 - top half of 197.
B. A world takes shape which goes beyond cultural differences. Modern industry has laid the foundation for a world community. But "...old cultural and political boundaries remained, often serving as a source of misunderstanding and strife."
1. But Ahrens does NOT suggest that distinct national cultures should be wiped out. Rather, we can build a universal culture above and across it. Problem is you have business and political interests which sought to exploit these differences. (p. 198) (Indeed, the whole move toward globalization of the economy is a logical and welcome development, although I don't believe Ahrens would necessarily endorse the current form it is taking.)
C. Unfortunately, our social and political thinking (which would include sociology, see p. 204, although the human ecologists come closest to Ahrens' view) has not caught up with this corporate reality. We still think in terms of individuals, groups or national interests -- all of which are inadequate to comprehend this corporate development.
D. Finally, Ahrens also acknowledges that the machine is problematic -- it has greatly enhanced our capacities for action, but not always for the good. It eliminated drudgery of much work and freed us to cultivate the mind life.
See all of pp. 202-203, for both the good and bad of the machine.
_______________________
That's all folks.
1. As the MEANS to life, Ahrens distinguishes three facets: (a) PHYSICALLY, objects are crucial, obviously, to our very physical existence, comfort, health, security, etc.; (b) MENTALLY, objects are also important to our mind life -- developing our intelligence, knowledge requires access to pens, paper, books, microscopes, computers, etc., etc.; (c) ACTION -- objects are significant to realizing human purposes, whether it be health, industry, communicaions, etc.
2. As the CONTENT of life, our lives are organized about them. And it is through developing and maintaining objects that we become who we are -- how we become teachers, doctors, farmers, mechanics, etc.
3. As the MEDIUM in which life is lived -- the creation of homes, roads, markets, industry has given us a new world (with a new body) in which to live. The development of civilization cannot be thought of apart from the development of objects. Civilization is the electricity, airplans, drugs, roads, etc., etc.
G. So, the development/evolution of society involves action or work with objects. It was not something planned but grew as humans modified their world, developed new objects, and these objects became organized. (At this point Ahrens begins to sketch his view of the development of civilization.)
H. PRIMITIVE society was largely focused on meeting basic survival needs and had little object development to sustain cultural life. But that changed with the development of agriculture, which happened largely by accident, and represented the first major modification of human life. It became the dominant occupation around which social life will increasingly become organized.
I. AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY
1. At some point this society required a permanent settlement -- Human life became bound up with plant and animal life and identified with a certain land or territory.
2. New objects were developed, especially to facilitate the activities of agriculture -- barns, tools, granaries, fences for animals, the house, etc.. Among these, the HOUSE occupies a crucial place. See first paragraph, p.167, on the house as a central object of agricultural society, and what it made possible.
3. Increased agricultural production, settled pattern of life, naturally led to increase in population. Which, in turn, meant more land needed to be cleared, more homes built.
4. There was also a qualitative change -- suggests move from magic, frightening images of primitive people, to gods with a human character. People began to beseech these gods for help.
5. But it was mainly in its objectification that agricultural life differed. The center of agricultural life shifted outward; life became organized not just around the family but around objects -- farm, fields, livestock.
6. While primitive people lived for the present, agricultural people began to think in terms of a past, and especially of a future -- that corporate or object development made this possible.
7. Order, solidarity, grew out of that stage -- agricultural tasks called for mutual aid -- "Among neighbors, animals were interbred, tools borrowed, objects bartered and exchanged -- all of which constituted the "stuff" of their relations."
8. Tribal feelings gave way to community feelings -- people became known for their village or region.
9. Their language was shaped by the objects, sights, and sounds of their world. Songs and stories celebrated seasons, work, mountains, streams -- objects of significance. Plants and animals figure among agricultural people's most important aesthetic objects; the shade tree or the fields planted by their ancestors take on great meaning.
WORK AND CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT: PART II
A. Even considering all of the above, the object development of agricultural society was rudimentary. They had limited means of power and knowledge to develop much beyond rudimentary objects, certainly by the standard of our modern industrial society.
B. The development of objects of diverse design (often for relgious or military purposes) led to a more specialized craft life, using a range of new materials. At this point, the division of labor becomes more pronounced and we see the beginnings of economic institutionalization and ultimately the city.
1. Work life branched out like a tree -- a process Ahrens calls "INDIVIDUATION." Activities were separate yet interdependent, as if performed by a single person, but many were involved -- eg., the making of a wagon depended not just on the wagon maker, but the tool maker, the iron worker, the lumberman, etc.
C. Whereas the transition from primitive to agricultural may have been accidental, the transition from agricultural to craft was more a "natural growth continuity."
D. "...the development of craft marked a shift of the person's thought and energies from tending plants and animals to object creation. Instead of serving agricultural and biological needs, work activity as object-making liberated itself and assumed a life of its own." (p. 180)
1. The aesthetic motive entered object design, especially in the field of architecture.
E. THE CITY -- Ahrens acknowledges the contradictory evaluations of the city, but there can be no doubt that it represented another significant step in the advance of civilization. See first paragraph, p. 182.
1. What was ultimately responsible for this was CRAFT -- craft involving imagination, skill, knowledge of materials, planning, rational procedure -- it is an activity crucial to the development of objective mind life. Out of this comes systems of writing and measurement.
2. Writing was especially significant, because it served as a new medium of mind continuity -- allows institutional system, the city, society to become objects of reflection. Ultimately leads to the creation of LAW and the STATE -- "The life of custom gave way to law, ... along with the rational formulation of governmental institutions."
a.) Designers of objects became designers of law.
3. So, the city gave rise to political society in which we sought to control human destiny. (All of the above, suggesting a different view of the origin of the state from the "social contract view.")
WORK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE OR ORDERED LIFE: Part III: Outer Organization and the Structure of Modern Society
A. The industrial revolution and the development of machine power to supplement human power, gave rise to modern corporate society -- the highest form of corporate life yet to be achieved.
1. "While family and local institutions exist today, they no longer are the dominant forms of institutional life. We now live our lives essentially in a system of institutions that are national and international in scope." (p. 189)
a.) Life issues in the ends of the great community in which all local communities have been incorporated. Cities become more interdependent. Farmers now produce not just for local markets but for national and international markets.
2. Although this modern physical development has not necessarily given rise to a more moral society or life (indeed, it seems more immoral than moral), Ahrens contends that this outward development has a moral root -- that it increases the person's capacities and powers of action.
3. Ahrens recognizes that among the problems this new corporate society has given rise to is that it has drastically changed the nature of human relations, a point most sociologists emphasize. As Ahrens observes, sociologists talk about the breakdown of "primary relations" and the increasing dominance of "secondary relations." See pp. 196 - top half of 197.
B. A world takes shape which goes beyond cultural differences. Modern industry has laid the foundation for a world community. But "...old cultural and political boundaries remained, often serving as a source of misunderstanding and strife."
1. But Ahrens does NOT suggest that distinct national cultures should be wiped out. Rather, we can build a universal culture above and across it. Problem is you have business and political interests which sought to exploit these differences. (p. 198) (Indeed, the whole move toward globalization of the economy is a logical and welcome development, although I don't believe Ahrens would necessarily endorse the current form it is taking.)
C. Unfortunately, our social and political thinking (which would include sociology, see p. 204, although the human ecologists come closest to Ahrens' view) has not caught up with this corporate reality. We still think in terms of individuals, groups or national interests -- all of which are inadequate to comprehend this corporate development.
D. Finally, Ahrens also acknowledges that the machine is problematic -- it has greatly enhanced our capacities for action, but not always for the good. It eliminated drudgery of much work and freed us to cultivate the mind life.
See all of pp. 202-203, for both the good and bad of the machine.
_______________________
That's all folks.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Lecture Notes: "Order and Disorder in Society" II
Disregard the previous blog post. Below is the continuation of my notes on Ahrens' lectures.
WORK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE - OR ORDERED LIFE: PART I
A. Ahrens opens by stressing the primacy of work or action, both in explaining the individual and his/her character and the development of society.
1. Our character, our nature is developed/shaped through action -- study makes the scholar, business the businessman, crime the criminal.
2. Given that we have our existence in society, what explains the nature of society explains our nature -- that primitive, aristocratic, enslaved, business, or civic individuals are all what they are through their relation to the larger social order, be it primitive, aristocratic, etc.
B. Ahrens puts this in the context of sociology by suggesting that, at its most significant, it represents a reaction against modern individualism and psychology. It reaffirms the classical idea (Plato & Aristotle) that we are political animals (or social animals) whose lives cannot be made intelligible apart from that organized world. He mentions Comte in this regard.
C. But he goes on to observe that sociological literature offers little concerning the growth in life organization, especially focusing on the role of work, as Ahrens does.
D. Basically, Ahrens suggests that civilization or society is a by-product of action or work. As human beings grappled with problems of survival, they developed objects, inventions which became the basis for civilized life. They had not intended to do this -- "It was not human will that created civilization, but civilization that changed human beings and generated the will for its own preservation." (p. 157)
E. This leads Ahrens to discuss the nature of work, contrasting it with some common views.
1. "Any object cared for, created, or improved is work; hence we support a culture and civilization in and through our work life." (p. 158)
a.) When he refers to work, he is referring to something broader than work in a strictly economic sense -- something we do merely to make money. All cultural activities depend on industry (work) -- maintaining and fashioning the physical objects which enter into a person's physical, social and cultural life.
2. But prevailing conceptions of work are NEGATIVE -- work is seen as a necessary evil; leisure is ideal. In this view, people must be bribed to work, bribed by material rewards. Leisure is connected more with culture.
a.) But Ahrens sees it as confusing to value leisure (in the sense of loafing) over work, because leisure really contributes nothing to civilization.
b.) The notion that physical labor is demeaning is really a remnant of feudal thinking -- he acknowledges some forms of work, such as slave labor, may have this character. But where there is a real unity of person and work, "where work challenges and calls forth all our human capacities and powers,..." (p. 160) it is not demeaning.
3. A fundamental criterion of person-to-work unity is not ease or pleasantness of labor. Work may be hard yet very satisfying. We become one with our work when it issues in meaningful, significant objects. (eg., teaching, with students as the "meaningful, significant objects.")
4. Work may be driven by need and want, as in the case of primitive peoples, but as humans have progressed from a "state of nature" and developed culturally, we have come to work or act in terms of the value of the objects of culture.
a.) Work has come to be defined in terms of culture -- what elicits our efforts, drives, motivates us is the significance of the objects worked on. Not fundamentally in terms of compulsion or greed.
5. The meaning of work becomes inseparable from the meaning of objects -- a view which avoids the ambiguity of two dominant views: (1) view of Christianity (and other religions) which sees objects (the material world) as peripheral and really a danger to the soul. And (2) the view which sees the mere accumulation or possession of objects as external, having no value of their own.
____________________________
That's all for now. Look for more by the end of the week.
WORK AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE - OR ORDERED LIFE: PART I
A. Ahrens opens by stressing the primacy of work or action, both in explaining the individual and his/her character and the development of society.
1. Our character, our nature is developed/shaped through action -- study makes the scholar, business the businessman, crime the criminal.
2. Given that we have our existence in society, what explains the nature of society explains our nature -- that primitive, aristocratic, enslaved, business, or civic individuals are all what they are through their relation to the larger social order, be it primitive, aristocratic, etc.
B. Ahrens puts this in the context of sociology by suggesting that, at its most significant, it represents a reaction against modern individualism and psychology. It reaffirms the classical idea (Plato & Aristotle) that we are political animals (or social animals) whose lives cannot be made intelligible apart from that organized world. He mentions Comte in this regard.
C. But he goes on to observe that sociological literature offers little concerning the growth in life organization, especially focusing on the role of work, as Ahrens does.
D. Basically, Ahrens suggests that civilization or society is a by-product of action or work. As human beings grappled with problems of survival, they developed objects, inventions which became the basis for civilized life. They had not intended to do this -- "It was not human will that created civilization, but civilization that changed human beings and generated the will for its own preservation." (p. 157)
E. This leads Ahrens to discuss the nature of work, contrasting it with some common views.
1. "Any object cared for, created, or improved is work; hence we support a culture and civilization in and through our work life." (p. 158)
a.) When he refers to work, he is referring to something broader than work in a strictly economic sense -- something we do merely to make money. All cultural activities depend on industry (work) -- maintaining and fashioning the physical objects which enter into a person's physical, social and cultural life.
2. But prevailing conceptions of work are NEGATIVE -- work is seen as a necessary evil; leisure is ideal. In this view, people must be bribed to work, bribed by material rewards. Leisure is connected more with culture.
a.) But Ahrens sees it as confusing to value leisure (in the sense of loafing) over work, because leisure really contributes nothing to civilization.
b.) The notion that physical labor is demeaning is really a remnant of feudal thinking -- he acknowledges some forms of work, such as slave labor, may have this character. But where there is a real unity of person and work, "where work challenges and calls forth all our human capacities and powers,..." (p. 160) it is not demeaning.
3. A fundamental criterion of person-to-work unity is not ease or pleasantness of labor. Work may be hard yet very satisfying. We become one with our work when it issues in meaningful, significant objects. (eg., teaching, with students as the "meaningful, significant objects.")
4. Work may be driven by need and want, as in the case of primitive peoples, but as humans have progressed from a "state of nature" and developed culturally, we have come to work or act in terms of the value of the objects of culture.
a.) Work has come to be defined in terms of culture -- what elicits our efforts, drives, motivates us is the significance of the objects worked on. Not fundamentally in terms of compulsion or greed.
5. The meaning of work becomes inseparable from the meaning of objects -- a view which avoids the ambiguity of two dominant views: (1) view of Christianity (and other religions) which sees objects (the material world) as peripheral and really a danger to the soul. And (2) the view which sees the mere accumulation or possession of objects as external, having no value of their own.
____________________________
That's all for now. Look for more by the end of the week.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Lecture Notes: "Order and Disorder in Society" I
"Order and Disorder in Society"
by Erich Ahrens, edited and with Introduction by Melvin Bobick
INTRODUCTION
A. In this brief introduction, Prof. Bobick touches on where Ahrens' thought stands in the history of sociological theory, the main thrust of his lectures, and the primary influences on his thought.
1. Ahrens and the history of sociological theory.
a.) As noted in the very beginning, Ahrens was a "system builder" in much the same mold as Auguste Comte and other 19th-century thinkers we have discussed in this class. Which is to say, he explored broad, basic questions in a comprehensive way, drawing especially on his extensive knowledge of history.
(1) Although the term is not used in Prof. Bobick's comments, I believe Ahrens would qualify as a "social realist," recognizing the reality and significance of that larger life -- society, institutions.
(2) We could also say that Ahrens clearly embodies the "sociological imagination," but I would argue in a much more profound sense than C. Wright Mills intended (eg., his very deep knowledge of history).
1. The main thrust of his lectures.
a.) I would characterize the main thrust of his lectures, and indeed his thought in general, being the definition of "CORPORATE SOCIETY," and the sources of order and disorder within it. (And by "corporate," Ahrens is not referring to business. He is using corporate in its original Latin meaning: CORPORATUS, CORPORARE -- TO MAKE INTO A BODY; OR CORPUS -- A BODY. ALSO MEANING, UNITED OR COMBINED.)
b.) It does not come through much in this introduction, but Ahrens stressed the role of objects in human life and society -- essentially, that through action or work we create a world of meaning (i.e., culture). A by-product of action has been the creation of institutions, or organized systems of objects through which human ends are achieved. They constitute the body ("corpus") and are the basis or ground of order in modern society.
3. Primary influences on his thought.
a.) The one sociologist who is mentioned is RODERICK MCKENZIE, under whom Ahrens studied (1924-26). McKenzie was a human ecologist. As Bobick observes: "McKenzie saw objects as part of the organized structure of the world and thus recognized their importance in defining society." (p. 2) But as Bobick goes on to point out, Ahrens argued that McKenzie neglected the role of mind, thinking, ideas in the evolution of society(as we will see in Ahrens' own view of societal evolution).
b.) Most crucial to Ahrens' thought was American philosopher, ELIJAH JORDAN (especially his books, "Forms of Individuality" and "Theory of Legislation"). Jordan united what he saw as the major human contribution to modern society -- genuine thought -- with what he held to be the principal actors in modern society -- institutions.
c.) Ahrens (as did Jordan) also drew on Plato, especially his more "sociological writings" -- "The Republic," "Statesman," and "The Laws." Ahrens used "The Republic" as a basic text in Intro. Sociology.
(1) "Like Plato, and unlike the relativistic theory and sociology of his day, Ahrens believed human beings to be capable of thinking logically about society. And like Plato, he believed that a direct relationship existed between thinking logically about society and acting morally in it." (p. 4)
(For the Greeks, and Plato in particular, knowledge and virtue went hand-in-hand, which in modern terms would be the equivalent of fact and value going hand-in-hand.)
____________________
That's all for now. I will post the rest of my lecture notes on Ahrens in a couple installments by the end of this week, hopefully.
by Erich Ahrens, edited and with Introduction by Melvin Bobick
INTRODUCTION
A. In this brief introduction, Prof. Bobick touches on where Ahrens' thought stands in the history of sociological theory, the main thrust of his lectures, and the primary influences on his thought.
1. Ahrens and the history of sociological theory.
a.) As noted in the very beginning, Ahrens was a "system builder" in much the same mold as Auguste Comte and other 19th-century thinkers we have discussed in this class. Which is to say, he explored broad, basic questions in a comprehensive way, drawing especially on his extensive knowledge of history.
(1) Although the term is not used in Prof. Bobick's comments, I believe Ahrens would qualify as a "social realist," recognizing the reality and significance of that larger life -- society, institutions.
(2) We could also say that Ahrens clearly embodies the "sociological imagination," but I would argue in a much more profound sense than C. Wright Mills intended (eg., his very deep knowledge of history).
1. The main thrust of his lectures.
a.) I would characterize the main thrust of his lectures, and indeed his thought in general, being the definition of "CORPORATE SOCIETY," and the sources of order and disorder within it. (And by "corporate," Ahrens is not referring to business. He is using corporate in its original Latin meaning: CORPORATUS, CORPORARE -- TO MAKE INTO A BODY; OR CORPUS -- A BODY. ALSO MEANING, UNITED OR COMBINED.)
b.) It does not come through much in this introduction, but Ahrens stressed the role of objects in human life and society -- essentially, that through action or work we create a world of meaning (i.e., culture). A by-product of action has been the creation of institutions, or organized systems of objects through which human ends are achieved. They constitute the body ("corpus") and are the basis or ground of order in modern society.
3. Primary influences on his thought.
a.) The one sociologist who is mentioned is RODERICK MCKENZIE, under whom Ahrens studied (1924-26). McKenzie was a human ecologist. As Bobick observes: "McKenzie saw objects as part of the organized structure of the world and thus recognized their importance in defining society." (p. 2) But as Bobick goes on to point out, Ahrens argued that McKenzie neglected the role of mind, thinking, ideas in the evolution of society(as we will see in Ahrens' own view of societal evolution).
b.) Most crucial to Ahrens' thought was American philosopher, ELIJAH JORDAN (especially his books, "Forms of Individuality" and "Theory of Legislation"). Jordan united what he saw as the major human contribution to modern society -- genuine thought -- with what he held to be the principal actors in modern society -- institutions.
c.) Ahrens (as did Jordan) also drew on Plato, especially his more "sociological writings" -- "The Republic," "Statesman," and "The Laws." Ahrens used "The Republic" as a basic text in Intro. Sociology.
(1) "Like Plato, and unlike the relativistic theory and sociology of his day, Ahrens believed human beings to be capable of thinking logically about society. And like Plato, he believed that a direct relationship existed between thinking logically about society and acting morally in it." (p. 4)
(For the Greeks, and Plato in particular, knowledge and virtue went hand-in-hand, which in modern terms would be the equivalent of fact and value going hand-in-hand.)
____________________
That's all for now. I will post the rest of my lecture notes on Ahrens in a couple installments by the end of this week, hopefully.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Lecture Notes: Section IX, Chapter 19 & 24
Section IX: Transitions and Challenges
A. In this brief overview of the last several chapters, the authors give a glimpse of the most current trends in sociological theory. Although I certainly welcome the increased attention to women and race, I can't really say that I was terribly impressed with these new developments. I certainly would NOT agree with the assertion that feminist theories and theories of race and colonialism have done anything to resolve longstanding disputes such as the fact-value and micro-macro debates (as brought out in Chapter 19).
B. However, the authors' characterization of Chapter 19 does acknowledge an important point, which is that social movements outside of academia (women's movement, civil rights, anti-war, etc.) had a strong impact on what was happening WITHIN academia.
Chapter 19: Mid-Twentieth-Century Sociology
A. The authors begin by noting some of the momentous changes in the social and cultural life of most Western societies in the late 1950s and 60s.
1. And these changes were paralleled by challenges to the sociological orthodoxy of that era -- mainly structural-functionalism, but also with scientific (mainly quantitative) research. (C. Wright Mills, who, fortunately, is mentioned here, I believe did the best job of critically analyzing this orthodoxy in "The Sociological Imagination" (1959), attacking what he called: "GRAND THEORY" or Parsonian structural functionalism, and "ABSTRACTED EMPIRICISM" or quantitative survey research -- how both fit the existing order and provided no way to critically analyze it or change it.)
2. The authors note how many sociologists got involved in various radical movements.
3. This is not to say that sociologists had any significant or substantial impact on the issues they were involved with.
4. In many ways, this crucial period set the tone for sociology in the late 20th century. Clearly, some of the dominant issues and debates derive from this period.
B. Among these issues and debates, there is none of greater significance than that of FACTS AND VALUES. (Before we launch into this a bit, I'd like to say that the authors do a pretty good job in bringing out the different sides of this debate. Unfortunately, they rely too heavily on some of the weakest, most questionable critics of the value-free approach, namely, Gouldner & Friedrichs.)
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. As quoted: "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480) This reflected the professional, mainstream sociological position. (such cuss words-damned - are sprinkled on both sides of this debate, as if this lends greater force to their arguments.)
2. The authors go on to note some prominent American critics of the professional, value-free position -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to the value-free orthodoxy is captured in reference to Alvin Gouldner -- see middle paragraph, 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 students who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, take a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx (or, I should say, his ghost): "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (p. 484) (In one respect, I don't believe this is a valid distinction, but I'm certain what they meant is NOT the later, more scientific Marx, but the earlier more humanistic Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view on this issue was Alfred McClung Lee (who later founded the AHS or Association of Humanist Sociologists). He later expanded his presidential address, "Sociology for Whom?" into a book. See overview of his position middle, 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 also falls under this same heading, as the authors do note, and they also describe the micro/macro debate. See bottom paragraph, p. 488.
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) -- how truly pathetic!
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, again, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perpectives bridging any divides.)
1. Most of what is discussed in the context of feminist sociological theory is evidence of how women had been discriminated against in academia until fairly recently.
2. The closest thing to any substantive theory is the comment from Simone de Beauvoir about women as "Other." see mid, p. 493.
3. It is not at all clear how feminist theory or research has begun "to transform traditional sociological content, methods, and theoretical perspectives" -- except to critically examine the role of women in society.
4. The sociology of race and colonialism is even less clear. Their account of BLACK MILITANCY and SOCIOLOGY AND RACE is superficial with some big gaps. (eg., no mention of the Kerner Commission Report on rioting in the mid 60s. Gunnar Myrdal's "An American Dilemma" is not mentioned. And they focus on some of the most inconsequential, although vocal, black leaders such as Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton, even Stokley Carmichael. Dr. King was actually more "miltant" in his own way than the whole lot put together.)
E. In "Final Thoughts," I guess you could say the authors VERY GENERALLY identify some of the changes these new theories supported. See bottom p. 498-499. But in the end, I don't see the case for some great paradigmatic shift in sociology.
Chapter 24: Final Thoughts on Sociological Theory
A. For the most part, this chapter simply represents a very cursory view of the range of sociological theories and the social and historical conditions they offered explanations of. It is only toward the very end that the authors address some important questions about the relevance of sociological thoery.
B. In the last section on the "Future of Sociological Theory," the authors present some POSTMODERN critiques of the whole sociological enterprise -- critiques which suggest sociological theorists' quest for answers to questions of ORDER in society, of SOCIAL CHANGE, of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, etc. is illusory -- that the very existence of an objective reality outside one's head, one's perspective, is called into question.
1. This may be an unfairly extreme view of postmodernism, but it is important to acknowledge the authors' (and my own) rejection of it, as the authors put it -- see bottom half, p. 608.
2. Finally, they also underscore that sociological theory is an "unfinished business," but in the end it is meaningless unless it has some bearing on transforming the world for the better. "It is an enterprise that, if it is true to its heritage, must be concerned with the promotion of ways and means to tranform the world, in order to offer dignity, health, and security to all human beings." (p. 609)
________________________
That's it for the text. Next week I'll be blogging notes on Ahrens' lectures.
A. In this brief overview of the last several chapters, the authors give a glimpse of the most current trends in sociological theory. Although I certainly welcome the increased attention to women and race, I can't really say that I was terribly impressed with these new developments. I certainly would NOT agree with the assertion that feminist theories and theories of race and colonialism have done anything to resolve longstanding disputes such as the fact-value and micro-macro debates (as brought out in Chapter 19).
B. However, the authors' characterization of Chapter 19 does acknowledge an important point, which is that social movements outside of academia (women's movement, civil rights, anti-war, etc.) had a strong impact on what was happening WITHIN academia.
Chapter 19: Mid-Twentieth-Century Sociology
A. The authors begin by noting some of the momentous changes in the social and cultural life of most Western societies in the late 1950s and 60s.
1. And these changes were paralleled by challenges to the sociological orthodoxy of that era -- mainly structural-functionalism, but also with scientific (mainly quantitative) research. (C. Wright Mills, who, fortunately, is mentioned here, I believe did the best job of critically analyzing this orthodoxy in "The Sociological Imagination" (1959), attacking what he called: "GRAND THEORY" or Parsonian structural functionalism, and "ABSTRACTED EMPIRICISM" or quantitative survey research -- how both fit the existing order and provided no way to critically analyze it or change it.)
2. The authors note how many sociologists got involved in various radical movements.
3. This is not to say that sociologists had any significant or substantial impact on the issues they were involved with.
4. In many ways, this crucial period set the tone for sociology in the late 20th century. Clearly, some of the dominant issues and debates derive from this period.
B. Among these issues and debates, there is none of greater significance than that of FACTS AND VALUES. (Before we launch into this a bit, I'd like to say that the authors do a pretty good job in bringing out the different sides of this debate. Unfortunately, they rely too heavily on some of the weakest, most questionable critics of the value-free approach, namely, Gouldner & Friedrichs.)
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. As quoted: "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480) This reflected the professional, mainstream sociological position. (such cuss words-damned - are sprinkled on both sides of this debate, as if this lends greater force to their arguments.)
2. The authors go on to note some prominent American critics of the professional, value-free position -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to the value-free orthodoxy is captured in reference to Alvin Gouldner -- see middle paragraph, 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 students who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, take a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx (or, I should say, his ghost): "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (p. 484) (In one respect, I don't believe this is a valid distinction, but I'm certain what they meant is NOT the later, more scientific Marx, but the earlier more humanistic Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view on this issue was Alfred McClung Lee (who later founded the AHS or Association of Humanist Sociologists). He later expanded his presidential address, "Sociology for Whom?" into a book. See overview of his position middle, 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 also falls under this same heading, as the authors do note, and they also describe the micro/macro debate. See bottom paragraph, p. 488.
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) -- how truly pathetic!
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, again, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perpectives bridging any divides.)
1. Most of what is discussed in the context of feminist sociological theory is evidence of how women had been discriminated against in academia until fairly recently.
2. The closest thing to any substantive theory is the comment from Simone de Beauvoir about women as "Other." see mid, p. 493.
3. It is not at all clear how feminist theory or research has begun "to transform traditional sociological content, methods, and theoretical perspectives" -- except to critically examine the role of women in society.
4. The sociology of race and colonialism is even less clear. Their account of BLACK MILITANCY and SOCIOLOGY AND RACE is superficial with some big gaps. (eg., no mention of the Kerner Commission Report on rioting in the mid 60s. Gunnar Myrdal's "An American Dilemma" is not mentioned. And they focus on some of the most inconsequential, although vocal, black leaders such as Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton, even Stokley Carmichael. Dr. King was actually more "miltant" in his own way than the whole lot put together.)
E. In "Final Thoughts," I guess you could say the authors VERY GENERALLY identify some of the changes these new theories supported. See bottom p. 498-499. But in the end, I don't see the case for some great paradigmatic shift in sociology.
Chapter 24: Final Thoughts on Sociological Theory
A. For the most part, this chapter simply represents a very cursory view of the range of sociological theories and the social and historical conditions they offered explanations of. It is only toward the very end that the authors address some important questions about the relevance of sociological thoery.
B. In the last section on the "Future of Sociological Theory," the authors present some POSTMODERN critiques of the whole sociological enterprise -- critiques which suggest sociological theorists' quest for answers to questions of ORDER in society, of SOCIAL CHANGE, of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, etc. is illusory -- that the very existence of an objective reality outside one's head, one's perspective, is called into question.
1. This may be an unfairly extreme view of postmodernism, but it is important to acknowledge the authors' (and my own) rejection of it, as the authors put it -- see bottom half, p. 608.
2. Finally, they also underscore that sociological theory is an "unfinished business," but in the end it is meaningless unless it has some bearing on transforming the world for the better. "It is an enterprise that, if it is true to its heritage, must be concerned with the promotion of ways and means to tranform the world, in order to offer dignity, health, and security to all human beings." (p. 609)
________________________
That's it for the text. Next week I'll be blogging notes on Ahrens' lectures.
Family Activity: Making Up Questions for the Final Exam
The families need to get working on making up questions for the final exam, as you did for the midterm. All of you should have a good idea of the kinds of questions I am looking for from having made up questions for the midterm and taken the midterm exam. The second half of the course begins with my "Making Amends II" notes posted on this blog on the second half of Chapter 5 on Marx and Engels. Of course, keep in mind that, especially during these past few weeks, my lecture notes have been posted on the blog. So, there is a lot of blog material from which you can make questions. Also, you may consider making up questions from the various xerox handouts I've distributed in class. I will give you time in class next week, both Tuesday 5/3 & Thursday, 5/5, to confer with your family members. I then want each family to submit FIVE questions and answers to me in writing or via email NO LATER TUESDAY, MAY 10TH BY 4PM. (THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE DEADLINE BECAUSE OUR FINAL EXAM IS SCHEDULED FOR THE FIRST DAY OF FINAL EXAM WEEK.) I will then select at least TWO questions from each family, and for each additional question I accept, that family will earn a bonus point, plus have the advantage of knowing more of the exam. I will then post the questions and answers I accept NO LATER THAN THURSDAY, MAY 12TH AT 1PM on this blog, so you will have this in plenty of time to study for the final exam. Each PARTICIPATING family member will earn 8 points for this exercise, with the possibility of earning bonus points.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Lecture Notes: Section VIII Intro. & Chapter 16: Critical Theory: The Frankfurt School and Habermas
Section VIII Criticism, Marxism, Change
A. Again, a brief and not very informative introduction. The authors begin by summarizing the previous section as being about "...the more-or-less 'official' twentieth-century conservative capitalist theory and ideology of functionalism." (p. 393)
B. Despite Marxist hopes for the demise of capitalism in the wake of the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression, etc., it did not happen and indeed the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union led Marxist intellectuals to question it as a model.
C. Hence, the emergence in the 1920s of what is called The Frankfurt School, which attempted to account for the failures and shortcomings of Soviet-style socialism, as well as criticizing Western capitalism, but not strictly on economic grounds. These thinkers drew on other perspectives, especially Freudian psychoanalysis. (eg. Herbert Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization")
Chapter 16: Critical Theory: The Frankfurt School and Habermas
A. Let me preface my remarks on this chapter by observing that, for the most part, I believe the authors did a good job of presenting these ideas in relativiely jargon-free language. I am very familiar with the main Frankfurt School thinkers featured, having read a good many of their basic works. And although I have not gotten into Habermas, based on the authors' analysis, I believe there is much of value there which would warrant reading some of his major works.
B. The authors open the chapter with a very appropriate observation about what inspired many of these thinkers. See opening paragraph, p. 395.
1. And, as the end of the 20th century (and beginning of the 21st) approached, it seemed that capitalism was triumphant and dominant, not likely to be overthrown by a working class. So, how did this come about and what might the future hold? Will the widely recognized drawbacks of capitalism ever be addressed? (Parenthetically, this would be the kind of question someone using the "sociological imagination" would explore.)
C. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt was established in 1921 in the wake of Germany's defeat in WW I and what seemed to be promising prospects for a socialist revolution there. It did not happen, of course. In fact, in a little more than a decade, Hitler would rise to power.
1. Many of the thinkers who became associated with the Insitute, such as its director, Max Horkheimer, were Jewish, and with anti-Semitism on the rise in the 1930s, they relocated their basis of operations to Columbia University (1934). Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm would go on to become important American social thinkers. (C. Wright Mills also hooked up with them there.)
2. The theorists of the Institute could loosely be described as "critical Marxists," but they represented many different fields -- art, music, literature, philosophy, psychoanalysis, etc. and there was not a unified theoretical perspective.
3. In terms of perspective, the authors describe the Institute's research as SUPRADISCIPLINARY, as they explain in the context of Marxism and their particular historical context. See bottom p. 396 - first paragraph, p. 397.
D. They give a brief biographical sketch of the four leading members -- Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm (mostly drawn from Martin Jay's fine book: "The Dialectical Imagination").
1. In terms of theoretical background, in addition to Marx of course, they were also influenced by the work of Hegel (by way of Georg Lukacs), Weber, Nietzche, and Freud -- quite an array of figures.
E. Beyond a narrower Marxist focus, these critical theorists were concerned that the whole premise of Enlightenment rationality (of achieving a more rational, liberal, equitable society) had been subverted. Reason had become "rationalization" which, as Max Weber noted, led to a bureaucratized, controlling state -- the "iron cage of rationality."
1. In this context, Max Horkheimer distinguished between two types of reason -- SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE. (p. 399, bottom)
a.) SUBJECTIVE REASON, which is simply concerned with figuring out the most appropriate or efficient means to achieve any end or purpose, does not concern itself with the question of whether the purposes or ends are themselves "reasonable," just or equitable. Such INSTRUMENTAL reason, to take an extreme example, could be as easily used by the Nazi extermination industry as by institutions concerned with the elimination of poverty and suffering. (top, p. 400)
1.) And what they saw as the limitations of subjective reason extends to the whole positivist enterprise. See middle two paragraphs, p. 400. (eg. that survey research only deals with surface phenomena, as Mills also argued.)
2.) As I noted in my paper on Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" -- "Subjective reason conforms to anything." (p. 25, Eclipse) And I went on to note -- "More than anything else, the dominance of subjective reason has meant the virtual preclusion of a critical perspective. That is to say, subjective reason provides no basis for criticism of existing social conditions;..."
b.) In contrast, OBJECTIVE REASON refers to reason as an instrument for determining social ends, of figuring out the objective world. This type of reason was the hopeful promise of the Enlightenment, which has, unfortunately, been transformed into instrumental, subjective reason in modern society.
1.) Objective reason insists that fundamental concepts such as truth, justice, right, wrong, etc. have meaning which is discoverable in the world. Thus, objective reason encompasses a CRITICAL perspective -- criticize the existing order of capitalism. (see my paper on "Eclipse of Reason")
2.) This objective reason is connected with EMANICIPATORY THEORY. See first two paragraphs, top, p.401.
F. Although theoretical critique -- emancipatory theory -- might point the way toward change, it does not guarantee it. Indeed, these Frankfurt School theorists were at pains to explain why a revolutionary working class consciousness had not developed. They were generally pessimistic about the prospects for change.
1. Increased consumption, the psychological domination of what they called "mass culture," undermined revolutionary thinking and practice. Georg Lukacs in "History and Class Consciousness" (1922) had observed that the proletariat had become prisoners of bourgeois ideas that capitalism and alienated labor were "natural," to be accepted, not criticized.
2. The authors also point out how these critical theorists saw the realization of Weber's view of the future as a bureaucratized, impersonal world of the iron cage.
G. Herbert Marcuse believed that we might be able to escape from this iron cage by a "GREAT REFUSAL" -- the refusal to buy into consumer society. He was hopeful that the counterculture movement of the 1960s represented this "great refusal." (unfortunately, a misplaced hope)
H. I am much less familiar with the work of Habermas and his particular reformulation along the lines of communication, creating "ideal speech communities." On the surface, it sounds pretty subjective to me. But his analysis of how capitalist society ahd managed to thwart any revolutionary movement is perceptive and consistent with the views of other members of the Frankfurt School. See bottom paragraph, p. 419 - top 2 paragraphs, p. 420.
I. Finally, the authors quote a nice statement from Habermas about how he felt critical theory is true to the origins of sociology. See passage from Habermas near bottom, p. 422.
And, read "Final Thoughts" (pp. 422-423), which I would add is relevant to "sociological imagination" and its relevance for our time.
___________________________
Look for lecture notes on Chapters 19 & 24 soon.
A. Again, a brief and not very informative introduction. The authors begin by summarizing the previous section as being about "...the more-or-less 'official' twentieth-century conservative capitalist theory and ideology of functionalism." (p. 393)
B. Despite Marxist hopes for the demise of capitalism in the wake of the Russian Revolution, the Great Depression, etc., it did not happen and indeed the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union led Marxist intellectuals to question it as a model.
C. Hence, the emergence in the 1920s of what is called The Frankfurt School, which attempted to account for the failures and shortcomings of Soviet-style socialism, as well as criticizing Western capitalism, but not strictly on economic grounds. These thinkers drew on other perspectives, especially Freudian psychoanalysis. (eg. Herbert Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization")
Chapter 16: Critical Theory: The Frankfurt School and Habermas
A. Let me preface my remarks on this chapter by observing that, for the most part, I believe the authors did a good job of presenting these ideas in relativiely jargon-free language. I am very familiar with the main Frankfurt School thinkers featured, having read a good many of their basic works. And although I have not gotten into Habermas, based on the authors' analysis, I believe there is much of value there which would warrant reading some of his major works.
B. The authors open the chapter with a very appropriate observation about what inspired many of these thinkers. See opening paragraph, p. 395.
1. And, as the end of the 20th century (and beginning of the 21st) approached, it seemed that capitalism was triumphant and dominant, not likely to be overthrown by a working class. So, how did this come about and what might the future hold? Will the widely recognized drawbacks of capitalism ever be addressed? (Parenthetically, this would be the kind of question someone using the "sociological imagination" would explore.)
C. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt was established in 1921 in the wake of Germany's defeat in WW I and what seemed to be promising prospects for a socialist revolution there. It did not happen, of course. In fact, in a little more than a decade, Hitler would rise to power.
1. Many of the thinkers who became associated with the Insitute, such as its director, Max Horkheimer, were Jewish, and with anti-Semitism on the rise in the 1930s, they relocated their basis of operations to Columbia University (1934). Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm would go on to become important American social thinkers. (C. Wright Mills also hooked up with them there.)
2. The theorists of the Institute could loosely be described as "critical Marxists," but they represented many different fields -- art, music, literature, philosophy, psychoanalysis, etc. and there was not a unified theoretical perspective.
3. In terms of perspective, the authors describe the Institute's research as SUPRADISCIPLINARY, as they explain in the context of Marxism and their particular historical context. See bottom p. 396 - first paragraph, p. 397.
D. They give a brief biographical sketch of the four leading members -- Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm (mostly drawn from Martin Jay's fine book: "The Dialectical Imagination").
1. In terms of theoretical background, in addition to Marx of course, they were also influenced by the work of Hegel (by way of Georg Lukacs), Weber, Nietzche, and Freud -- quite an array of figures.
E. Beyond a narrower Marxist focus, these critical theorists were concerned that the whole premise of Enlightenment rationality (of achieving a more rational, liberal, equitable society) had been subverted. Reason had become "rationalization" which, as Max Weber noted, led to a bureaucratized, controlling state -- the "iron cage of rationality."
1. In this context, Max Horkheimer distinguished between two types of reason -- SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE. (p. 399, bottom)
a.) SUBJECTIVE REASON, which is simply concerned with figuring out the most appropriate or efficient means to achieve any end or purpose, does not concern itself with the question of whether the purposes or ends are themselves "reasonable," just or equitable. Such INSTRUMENTAL reason, to take an extreme example, could be as easily used by the Nazi extermination industry as by institutions concerned with the elimination of poverty and suffering. (top, p. 400)
1.) And what they saw as the limitations of subjective reason extends to the whole positivist enterprise. See middle two paragraphs, p. 400. (eg. that survey research only deals with surface phenomena, as Mills also argued.)
2.) As I noted in my paper on Horkheimer's "Eclipse of Reason" -- "Subjective reason conforms to anything." (p. 25, Eclipse) And I went on to note -- "More than anything else, the dominance of subjective reason has meant the virtual preclusion of a critical perspective. That is to say, subjective reason provides no basis for criticism of existing social conditions;..."
b.) In contrast, OBJECTIVE REASON refers to reason as an instrument for determining social ends, of figuring out the objective world. This type of reason was the hopeful promise of the Enlightenment, which has, unfortunately, been transformed into instrumental, subjective reason in modern society.
1.) Objective reason insists that fundamental concepts such as truth, justice, right, wrong, etc. have meaning which is discoverable in the world. Thus, objective reason encompasses a CRITICAL perspective -- criticize the existing order of capitalism. (see my paper on "Eclipse of Reason")
2.) This objective reason is connected with EMANICIPATORY THEORY. See first two paragraphs, top, p.401.
F. Although theoretical critique -- emancipatory theory -- might point the way toward change, it does not guarantee it. Indeed, these Frankfurt School theorists were at pains to explain why a revolutionary working class consciousness had not developed. They were generally pessimistic about the prospects for change.
1. Increased consumption, the psychological domination of what they called "mass culture," undermined revolutionary thinking and practice. Georg Lukacs in "History and Class Consciousness" (1922) had observed that the proletariat had become prisoners of bourgeois ideas that capitalism and alienated labor were "natural," to be accepted, not criticized.
2. The authors also point out how these critical theorists saw the realization of Weber's view of the future as a bureaucratized, impersonal world of the iron cage.
G. Herbert Marcuse believed that we might be able to escape from this iron cage by a "GREAT REFUSAL" -- the refusal to buy into consumer society. He was hopeful that the counterculture movement of the 1960s represented this "great refusal." (unfortunately, a misplaced hope)
H. I am much less familiar with the work of Habermas and his particular reformulation along the lines of communication, creating "ideal speech communities." On the surface, it sounds pretty subjective to me. But his analysis of how capitalist society ahd managed to thwart any revolutionary movement is perceptive and consistent with the views of other members of the Frankfurt School. See bottom paragraph, p. 419 - top 2 paragraphs, p. 420.
I. Finally, the authors quote a nice statement from Habermas about how he felt critical theory is true to the origins of sociology. See passage from Habermas near bottom, p. 422.
And, read "Final Thoughts" (pp. 422-423), which I would add is relevant to "sociological imagination" and its relevance for our time.
___________________________
Look for lecture notes on Chapters 19 & 24 soon.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Lecture Notes: Intro. Section VII & Chapter 14: Twentieth-Century Functionalism: Parsons and Merton
Section VII: Twentieth-Century Functionalism and Beyond
A. This introduction is surprisingly weak, considering the fact that functionalism is one of the dominant sociological theories of the 20th century. It's a theory whose principal concern is ORDER in society, exploring the functions of various elements of society -- how the various elements or parts are integrated in the larger whole of society.
Chapter 14: Twentieth-Century Functionalism: Parsons and Merton
(Even though the authors cover some basic concepts Parsons introduced, overall I don't believe they did a good job presenting his overall view of society, or the more important criticisms of his theory. So, I am going to present Parsons' thought based more on a short piece by Alex Inkeles (which I'll hand out in class) and then draw on the text wherever relevant.)
Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)
A. Despite the difficulty of his writing style (discussed on p. 348) and the wide criticism of his theories, Talcott Parsons was one of the most important sociological theorists America has produced.
1. Although it took him a while to break into the Sociology Dept. at Harvard (9 years as an untenured instructor), he eventually became chairman of that department which was re-named the Department of Social Relations under his leadership. As chairman, he had a hand in turning out some of the most prominent American sociologists of the past century, such as Robert Merton. Parsons even made the cover of Time magazine on the occasion of his death in 1979, something not too many sociologists have done.
2. In his earliest major work, "The Structure of Social Action," (briefly mentioned and discussed on p. 349), Parsons accomplished THREE things: (a) First, he introduced an American audience to the work of some of the great European sociologists whose work had been largely neglected to this point (1937) -- namely, Durkheim, Weber, and Pareto. His commentary on Durkheim was well over 100 pages alone, and very insightful and comprehensive. He felt these thinkers were converging on a comprehensive theory of social action, which he went on to articulate in his book. (I would also mention that Parsons translated some of Weber's works.)
(b) Second, Parsons was one of the first American sociologists to take seriously the notion that SOCIETY IS A SYSTEM, which is to say, he embraced SOCIAL REALISM. (c) Third, in his theory of social action, he tried to integrate aspects of psychology (Freud), anthropology, and sociology (i.e., individual/inner, culture, and society).
3. But beyond this early emphasis on social action, after WWII, he came to focus more on the bigger picture of the social order (what Don Martindale described as a move from "Social Behaviorism" to "Macrofunctionalism," p. 349). It is in a book entitled, "The Social System," that he most clearly (or turgidly, according to critics like Mills) articulated the STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL framework, which I believe is better captured in the excerpt from Inkeles than in our text.
a.) 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. It certainly was evident in our discussion of many 19th-century sociological theorists.
b.) The structural functional view focuses on society as a whole or a system (like an organism), and on the interrelation of INSTITUTIONS moreso than on individuals or groups.
c.) It contends that what accounts for the persistence and continuity of society, as new generations come and go, is because "societies find means (structures) (which) fulfill needs (functions)...of organized social life." (p. 35, handout)
d.) 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 how it changes, though) -- 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. see bottom, p. 354)
1.) Eg. 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 he will live." (p. 35, handout) (This conservative view of the family also comes through in the authors' discussion of gender, p. 356.)
2.) Structural-functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or co-ordinated to preserve the unity of society (the social organism).
e.) Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not notice being 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." He goes on to suggest that the functionalists tend to underemphasize the individual's needs relative to the group or society.
f.) Inkeles also gets at what I believe is a more serious charge -- that it tends to provide a rationalization for the exisiting 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. Wrigh Mills) would challenge this perspective. (This criticism is referred to in the "Critique and Contributions" section (p. 358), but it is not brought out very well.)
2.) This has to do with Parsons' introduction of the concept of EQUILIBRIUM (which is very inadequately treated in the text, p. 350) "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 and stability. See last paragraph, p. 37- most of p. 38, handout.
a.) Inkeles, then, 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 last paragraph, p. 38-39, handout)
More ammunition to expose the conservative bias built into this equilibrium model is provided in the following passage from systems' theorist, Walter Buckley:
"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) and like his mentor, Merton's death was widely reported on.
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 society. 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 FUNCTIONS: manifest function being "the observed or intended outcome," and latent function being "the unintended or unrecognized result."
a.) The authors, then, proceed to give examples of this from Durkheim and Veblen. Apparently, Merton 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.e., "conspicuous consumption")." (I am not so sure -- I believe Veblen would have insisted that status and prestige is the manifest function of the accumulation of wealth.)
b.) I like an example that comes from Piven & Cloward's book, "Regulating the Poor," in which they distinguish between the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (give the poor enough so as not to rebel), which they regarded as its primary function.
c.) In general, this distinction suggests that we not acccept things at face value; that we look beneath the appearance of things.
2. Second, the concept of DYSFUNCTION (which should be in bold print in the text) or negatively functional. Note that in describing this, the authors also note how it responds to an issue Inkeles raised about functionalism. See middle two paragraphs, p. 362.
The above distinctions (manifest/latent & dysfunction) have implications for Parsons' focus on system equilibrium. See top paragraph, p. 364.
3. Finally, I believe we need to acknowledge a contribution of Merton's that I know I've made use of (although I am not so sure it was original with him) -- the concept of SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.
a.) The authors note that this notion of the "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."
1.) Note bank example, p. 365.
I would say the BOTTOM LINE with Merton is that, in various ways, he was challenging the accusation that functionalism was inherently conservative.
___________________________________
That's all for now. You might want to print these notes out, as well as the previous notes posted on the two previous blog posts on Chapters 12 & 13.
A. This introduction is surprisingly weak, considering the fact that functionalism is one of the dominant sociological theories of the 20th century. It's a theory whose principal concern is ORDER in society, exploring the functions of various elements of society -- how the various elements or parts are integrated in the larger whole of society.
Chapter 14: Twentieth-Century Functionalism: Parsons and Merton
(Even though the authors cover some basic concepts Parsons introduced, overall I don't believe they did a good job presenting his overall view of society, or the more important criticisms of his theory. So, I am going to present Parsons' thought based more on a short piece by Alex Inkeles (which I'll hand out in class) and then draw on the text wherever relevant.)
Talcott Parsons (1902-1979)
A. Despite the difficulty of his writing style (discussed on p. 348) and the wide criticism of his theories, Talcott Parsons was one of the most important sociological theorists America has produced.
1. Although it took him a while to break into the Sociology Dept. at Harvard (9 years as an untenured instructor), he eventually became chairman of that department which was re-named the Department of Social Relations under his leadership. As chairman, he had a hand in turning out some of the most prominent American sociologists of the past century, such as Robert Merton. Parsons even made the cover of Time magazine on the occasion of his death in 1979, something not too many sociologists have done.
2. In his earliest major work, "The Structure of Social Action," (briefly mentioned and discussed on p. 349), Parsons accomplished THREE things: (a) First, he introduced an American audience to the work of some of the great European sociologists whose work had been largely neglected to this point (1937) -- namely, Durkheim, Weber, and Pareto. His commentary on Durkheim was well over 100 pages alone, and very insightful and comprehensive. He felt these thinkers were converging on a comprehensive theory of social action, which he went on to articulate in his book. (I would also mention that Parsons translated some of Weber's works.)
(b) Second, Parsons was one of the first American sociologists to take seriously the notion that SOCIETY IS A SYSTEM, which is to say, he embraced SOCIAL REALISM. (c) Third, in his theory of social action, he tried to integrate aspects of psychology (Freud), anthropology, and sociology (i.e., individual/inner, culture, and society).
3. But beyond this early emphasis on social action, after WWII, he came to focus more on the bigger picture of the social order (what Don Martindale described as a move from "Social Behaviorism" to "Macrofunctionalism," p. 349). It is in a book entitled, "The Social System," that he most clearly (or turgidly, according to critics like Mills) articulated the STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL framework, which I believe is better captured in the excerpt from Inkeles than in our text.
a.) 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. It certainly was evident in our discussion of many 19th-century sociological theorists.
b.) The structural functional view focuses on society as a whole or a system (like an organism), and on the interrelation of INSTITUTIONS moreso than on individuals or groups.
c.) It contends that what accounts for the persistence and continuity of society, as new generations come and go, is because "societies find means (structures) (which) fulfill needs (functions)...of organized social life." (p. 35, handout)
d.) 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 how it changes, though) -- 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. see bottom, p. 354)
1.) Eg. 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 he will live." (p. 35, handout) (This conservative view of the family also comes through in the authors' discussion of gender, p. 356.)
2.) Structural-functionalists also deal with the question of how these institutions are integrated or co-ordinated to preserve the unity of society (the social organism).
e.) Inkeles argues that the most serious complaint against this perspective (which I did not notice being 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." He goes on to suggest that the functionalists tend to underemphasize the individual's needs relative to the group or society.
f.) Inkeles also gets at what I believe is a more serious charge -- that it tends to provide a rationalization for the exisiting 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. Wrigh Mills) would challenge this perspective. (This criticism is referred to in the "Critique and Contributions" section (p. 358), but it is not brought out very well.)
2.) This has to do with Parsons' introduction of the concept of EQUILIBRIUM (which is very inadequately treated in the text, p. 350) "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 and stability. See last paragraph, p. 37- most of p. 38, handout.
a.) Inkeles, then, 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 last paragraph, p. 38-39, handout)
More ammunition to expose the conservative bias built into this equilibrium model is provided in the following passage from systems' theorist, Walter Buckley:
"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) and like his mentor, Merton's death was widely reported on.
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 society. 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 FUNCTIONS: manifest function being "the observed or intended outcome," and latent function being "the unintended or unrecognized result."
a.) The authors, then, proceed to give examples of this from Durkheim and Veblen. Apparently, Merton 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.e., "conspicuous consumption")." (I am not so sure -- I believe Veblen would have insisted that status and prestige is the manifest function of the accumulation of wealth.)
b.) I like an example that comes from Piven & Cloward's book, "Regulating the Poor," in which they distinguish between the manifest function of welfare (reducing or eliminating poverty) and the latent function being regulating the poor (give the poor enough so as not to rebel), which they regarded as its primary function.
c.) In general, this distinction suggests that we not acccept things at face value; that we look beneath the appearance of things.
2. Second, the concept of DYSFUNCTION (which should be in bold print in the text) or negatively functional. Note that in describing this, the authors also note how it responds to an issue Inkeles raised about functionalism. See middle two paragraphs, p. 362.
The above distinctions (manifest/latent & dysfunction) have implications for Parsons' focus on system equilibrium. See top paragraph, p. 364.
3. Finally, I believe we need to acknowledge a contribution of Merton's that I know I've made use of (although I am not so sure it was original with him) -- the concept of SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.
a.) The authors note that this notion of the "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."
1.) Note bank example, p. 365.
I would say the BOTTOM LINE with Merton is that, in various ways, he was challenging the accusation that functionalism was inherently conservative.
___________________________________
That's all for now. You might want to print these notes out, as well as the previous notes posted on the two previous blog posts on Chapters 12 & 13.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Lecture Notes: Chapter 13: Society, Self, and Mind: Cooley, Mead, and Freud
A. The authors open this chapter with a point that I 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 the individual-level (or group-level) interaction, although I would insist that they were also aware of that larger social environment which plays a role in the development 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. Cooley was influenced by Spencer but did not agree with his more wholistic, organismic analogy. He argued that Spencer did not 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/contributions for Cooley.
1. "Looking-glass self" -- That is, 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, nerd, star, etc. -- will likely determine your identity. Creates what is called a "self-fulfilling prophecy," a concept that is especially relevant in terms of racial identity and stereotyping. (Even though it is not until we get to Merton in Chap. 14 that the authors talk about this concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy.)
3. And these individual interactions usually take place in "primary groups," or groups "characterized by intimate, face-to-face association and cooperation." (p. 313) And note what Cooley goes on to say about the fundamental role of the primary group (bottom, p. 313). Then, in the next paragraph at the top of p. 314, the authors draw a very important implication from this: "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 (such as the family) will result in problems for individuals 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 it really was 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 (also an influence on Cooley) and German psychologist, Wilhelm Wundt, from which Mead came to appreciate the role of gestures, sympbols, signs in human communication and interaction.
C. The authors do a good job of presenting a very basic aspect of Mead's thought, which is crucial to the later development of symbolic interactionism: that is his view of personality development being socially determined, involving three distinct stages which all hinge on the concept of "ROLE-TAKING." (which the authors do not define as such)
1. Those three stages being: PLAY, GAME, and "GENERALIZED OTHER," generalized other being the most significant. It represents the culmination of this process of self-development through role taking (or taking the role of the other and seeing yourself from the other's point of view). This represents the "synthesized view" of others' attitudes and expectations built up over a long period of time. Primary group interactions especially. I've always thought of the "generalized other" as similar to the conscience or Freud's "SUPER-EGO." (See, p. 322)
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. 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 some of the societal implications of this theory of personality development.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
A. Without getting into the real 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 or psyche, and the sociological implications of that view for the relation of the individual and society (or civilization). This sociological dimension comes through in his book, "Civilization and Its Discontents" (1930).
B. I defer to the authors' succinct overview of the three elements of the personality structure -- the ID, SUPER-EGO, and EGO. See this section, bottom p. 330 - 331.
C. In terms of the impact of civilization, Freud saw it as coercive, controlling our basic instinctual drives -- EROS - sexual; THANATOS - aggressive or death instinct. In the end, civilization is something that makes us sick or unhappy in that it necessarily represses these instinctual drives. This basic point is well-captured by the authors, see middle paragraph, p. 332.
"Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge"
A. This recent commentary brings out some of Freud's insights into culture and politics, which reflect his thinking during the last phase of his life.
B. The commentary also includes another overview of the Freudian view of the psyche. See second page, middle of the first column.
1. Freud argued that we deal with the inevitable conflict in the psyche in various ways -- intoxication, romantic love.
2. Notes how the tyrant has an erotic relationship to the crowd. The tyrant takes the place of the "over-I" or superego in the psyche of followers. People's yearning for a simple, clear direction from the superego leads them to embrace the tyrant. Nice description of such a tyrant and what he provides for the people, see top, p. 3.
3. In a sense, Freud saw a middle way (between tyranny and anarchy), a path that acknowledges the need to live and deal with tension and conflict which really describes the job of the ego, and which is preferable. In this regard, we should be suspicious of "feel-good-politics."
C. The author of this commentary concludes by applying this insight to the so-called "war on terror" -- the danger of fighting fundamentalist terrorists by embracing fundamentalism ourselves and turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of our leaders. See last paragraph of the commentary, p. 3.
______________________________
That brings us up to the Introduction to Section VII and Chapter 14.
"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 the individual-level (or group-level) interaction, although I would insist that they were also aware of that larger social environment which plays a role in the development 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. Cooley was influenced by Spencer but did not agree with his more wholistic, organismic analogy. He argued that Spencer did not 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/contributions for Cooley.
1. "Looking-glass self" -- That is, 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, nerd, star, etc. -- will likely determine your identity. Creates what is called a "self-fulfilling prophecy," a concept that is especially relevant in terms of racial identity and stereotyping. (Even though it is not until we get to Merton in Chap. 14 that the authors talk about this concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy.)
3. And these individual interactions usually take place in "primary groups," or groups "characterized by intimate, face-to-face association and cooperation." (p. 313) And note what Cooley goes on to say about the fundamental role of the primary group (bottom, p. 313). Then, in the next paragraph at the top of p. 314, the authors draw a very important implication from this: "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 (such as the family) will result in problems for individuals 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 it really was 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 (also an influence on Cooley) and German psychologist, Wilhelm Wundt, from which Mead came to appreciate the role of gestures, sympbols, signs in human communication and interaction.
C. The authors do a good job of presenting a very basic aspect of Mead's thought, which is crucial to the later development of symbolic interactionism: that is his view of personality development being socially determined, involving three distinct stages which all hinge on the concept of "ROLE-TAKING." (which the authors do not define as such)
1. Those three stages being: PLAY, GAME, and "GENERALIZED OTHER," generalized other being the most significant. It represents the culmination of this process of self-development through role taking (or taking the role of the other and seeing yourself from the other's point of view). This represents the "synthesized view" of others' attitudes and expectations built up over a long period of time. Primary group interactions especially. I've always thought of the "generalized other" as similar to the conscience or Freud's "SUPER-EGO." (See, p. 322)
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. 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 some of the societal implications of this theory of personality development.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
A. Without getting into the real 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 or psyche, and the sociological implications of that view for the relation of the individual and society (or civilization). This sociological dimension comes through in his book, "Civilization and Its Discontents" (1930).
B. I defer to the authors' succinct overview of the three elements of the personality structure -- the ID, SUPER-EGO, and EGO. See this section, bottom p. 330 - 331.
C. In terms of the impact of civilization, Freud saw it as coercive, controlling our basic instinctual drives -- EROS - sexual; THANATOS - aggressive or death instinct. In the end, civilization is something that makes us sick or unhappy in that it necessarily represses these instinctual drives. This basic point is well-captured by the authors, see middle paragraph, p. 332.
"Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge"
A. This recent commentary brings out some of Freud's insights into culture and politics, which reflect his thinking during the last phase of his life.
B. The commentary also includes another overview of the Freudian view of the psyche. See second page, middle of the first column.
1. Freud argued that we deal with the inevitable conflict in the psyche in various ways -- intoxication, romantic love.
2. Notes how the tyrant has an erotic relationship to the crowd. The tyrant takes the place of the "over-I" or superego in the psyche of followers. People's yearning for a simple, clear direction from the superego leads them to embrace the tyrant. Nice description of such a tyrant and what he provides for the people, see top, p. 3.
3. In a sense, Freud saw a middle way (between tyranny and anarchy), a path that acknowledges the need to live and deal with tension and conflict which really describes the job of the ego, and which is preferable. In this regard, we should be suspicious of "feel-good-politics."
C. The author of this commentary concludes by applying this insight to the so-called "war on terror" -- the danger of fighting fundamentalist terrorists by embracing fundamentalism ourselves and turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of our leaders. See last paragraph of the commentary, p. 3.
______________________________
That brings us up to the Introduction to Section VII and Chapter 14.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Lecture Notes: Remainder of Chapter 12: DuBois
Imperialism, Colonialism, and War
A. DuBois shared Lenin's belief that IMPERIALISM basically represented the global reach of capitalist exploitation, focusing on how various European powers had carved up and where exploiting Africa for its raw materials and cheap labor.
1. Imperialism and colonialism sort of go hand-in-hand. And in Africa this gets rationalized by appealing to race theory -- notions of the racial inferiority of Blacks. See bottom paragraph, p. 295.
2. This is also linked to war -- "central to imperialist capitalism is war." (p. 296). He recognizes Veblen's point on sabotage and destruction of resources. And the cause of war (especially WW I)? See middle paragraph p. 296.
3. Nonehteless, he did not believe colonialism was here to stay. He predicted the emergence of independence movements in Africa and elsewhere as the major powers exhausted themselves in war.
Social Organization and Culture
A. "DuBois argued that the basic element in social organization is oppression,..." Referred to this as the MANURE theory of social organization. "By this, he meant the dregs of humanity are considered fit only to do tasks that no human being ought to have to do." Which leads into his "Theory of Exclusiveness" -- "...a feeling that the world progresses by a process of excluding from the benefits of culture the majority of men, so that a gifted minority may blossom." (blossom from the manure, that is) (p. 297)
B. Nonetheless, he certainly believed darker peoples had contributed to civilization development -- it is just that these contributions had been obscured by the ideology of white supremacy. (eg., regarding Egyptian civilization as a prime example of black African contributions, which I would add is a controversial claim even today.)
Leadership and Power
A. Nothing significant here, although when he talks about leaders mirroring the values and attributes most prized by their society, note the values and attributes he identifies as American -- "wealth, show, impudence." -- not very flattering and again sounding like Veblen.
B. "DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS" -- this is a key concept for DuBois, which has resonated throughout African American history. As he describes it -- see bottom p. 298 - 299.
NATURE OF SOCIETY, HUMANS, AND CHANGE
A. Notes that DuBois exposed HISTORY AS IDEOLOGY -- how historians had unanimously argued that Blacks were responsible for the failure of Reconstruction and their subsequent inferior status. But DuBois strongly challenged this mainstream view in his book, "Black Reconstruction in America," which documents the many positive things that were accomplished during Reconstruction due black legislators, among others. (But the text does not go into any of the detail DuBois does in his book.)
B. DuBois did not believe that human nature was inherently good or bad, but malleable. Similarly, he did not see racial prejudice as ineradicable.
1. Makes an interesting point about this as regards the newly freed slaves. See first paragraph, p. 300.
2. However, he did not see progress (on the racial front or otherwise) as inevitable. Note what the authors say about DuBois's optimism -- see last paragraph, p. 300.
CLASS, GENDER, AND RACE
A. DuBois clearly saw class and race as intertwined. He makes an interesting point how class seems to trump race when you're talking about the black middle class. Nonetheless, he felt (like himself) that the black middle class had an obligation to try to uplift the masses of Black poor. See last two paragraphs, p. 301.
B. He "...argued that no scientific definition of race is possible. Physical differences fade into each other almost imperceptibly." (p. 302) Talks about the "race construct" -- which I believe is what is meant today by the concept of the "social construction of race."
1. In this context, DuBois contended that racial discrimination preceeded prejudice and could reinforce it.
C. DuBois recognized the uplift of women as the next great movement (after racial uplift, that is). And he spoke forcefully on issues of women's suffrage and education for women. Other progressive points noted.
OTHER THEORIES AND THEORISTS
A. The authors make an intersting point with respect to DuBois's take on William Graham Sumner's Social Darwinist perspective. See middle paragraph, p. 304.
B. And in commenting on DuBois's drift toward Marxism, they quote from a letter Marx wrote to Abraham Lincoln in 1865. See bottom, p. 304 (a passage which suggests Marx was right on the money with this prediction, even if he was way off on some others.)
CRITIQUE AND CONCLUSIONS & FINAL THOUGHTS
A. The authors acknowledge his potential to have been a great national leader, if he had been white (as Gunnar Myrdal observed). DuBois's politics, especially his sympathy for communism, also marginalized him.
B. And he clearly was a committed scholar. DuBois clearly belongs in the research tradition of CRITICAL THEORY.
__________________________________
That brings us up to Chapter 13. I'll probably be blogging those notes over this weekend, and certainly before next Tuesday's (4/26) class.
A. DuBois shared Lenin's belief that IMPERIALISM basically represented the global reach of capitalist exploitation, focusing on how various European powers had carved up and where exploiting Africa for its raw materials and cheap labor.
1. Imperialism and colonialism sort of go hand-in-hand. And in Africa this gets rationalized by appealing to race theory -- notions of the racial inferiority of Blacks. See bottom paragraph, p. 295.
2. This is also linked to war -- "central to imperialist capitalism is war." (p. 296). He recognizes Veblen's point on sabotage and destruction of resources. And the cause of war (especially WW I)? See middle paragraph p. 296.
3. Nonehteless, he did not believe colonialism was here to stay. He predicted the emergence of independence movements in Africa and elsewhere as the major powers exhausted themselves in war.
Social Organization and Culture
A. "DuBois argued that the basic element in social organization is oppression,..." Referred to this as the MANURE theory of social organization. "By this, he meant the dregs of humanity are considered fit only to do tasks that no human being ought to have to do." Which leads into his "Theory of Exclusiveness" -- "...a feeling that the world progresses by a process of excluding from the benefits of culture the majority of men, so that a gifted minority may blossom." (blossom from the manure, that is) (p. 297)
B. Nonetheless, he certainly believed darker peoples had contributed to civilization development -- it is just that these contributions had been obscured by the ideology of white supremacy. (eg., regarding Egyptian civilization as a prime example of black African contributions, which I would add is a controversial claim even today.)
Leadership and Power
A. Nothing significant here, although when he talks about leaders mirroring the values and attributes most prized by their society, note the values and attributes he identifies as American -- "wealth, show, impudence." -- not very flattering and again sounding like Veblen.
B. "DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS" -- this is a key concept for DuBois, which has resonated throughout African American history. As he describes it -- see bottom p. 298 - 299.
NATURE OF SOCIETY, HUMANS, AND CHANGE
A. Notes that DuBois exposed HISTORY AS IDEOLOGY -- how historians had unanimously argued that Blacks were responsible for the failure of Reconstruction and their subsequent inferior status. But DuBois strongly challenged this mainstream view in his book, "Black Reconstruction in America," which documents the many positive things that were accomplished during Reconstruction due black legislators, among others. (But the text does not go into any of the detail DuBois does in his book.)
B. DuBois did not believe that human nature was inherently good or bad, but malleable. Similarly, he did not see racial prejudice as ineradicable.
1. Makes an interesting point about this as regards the newly freed slaves. See first paragraph, p. 300.
2. However, he did not see progress (on the racial front or otherwise) as inevitable. Note what the authors say about DuBois's optimism -- see last paragraph, p. 300.
CLASS, GENDER, AND RACE
A. DuBois clearly saw class and race as intertwined. He makes an interesting point how class seems to trump race when you're talking about the black middle class. Nonetheless, he felt (like himself) that the black middle class had an obligation to try to uplift the masses of Black poor. See last two paragraphs, p. 301.
B. He "...argued that no scientific definition of race is possible. Physical differences fade into each other almost imperceptibly." (p. 302) Talks about the "race construct" -- which I believe is what is meant today by the concept of the "social construction of race."
1. In this context, DuBois contended that racial discrimination preceeded prejudice and could reinforce it.
C. DuBois recognized the uplift of women as the next great movement (after racial uplift, that is). And he spoke forcefully on issues of women's suffrage and education for women. Other progressive points noted.
OTHER THEORIES AND THEORISTS
A. The authors make an intersting point with respect to DuBois's take on William Graham Sumner's Social Darwinist perspective. See middle paragraph, p. 304.
B. And in commenting on DuBois's drift toward Marxism, they quote from a letter Marx wrote to Abraham Lincoln in 1865. See bottom, p. 304 (a passage which suggests Marx was right on the money with this prediction, even if he was way off on some others.)
CRITIQUE AND CONCLUSIONS & FINAL THOUGHTS
A. The authors acknowledge his potential to have been a great national leader, if he had been white (as Gunnar Myrdal observed). DuBois's politics, especially his sympathy for communism, also marginalized him.
B. And he clearly was a committed scholar. DuBois clearly belongs in the research tradition of CRITICAL THEORY.
__________________________________
That brings us up to Chapter 13. I'll probably be blogging those notes over this weekend, and certainly before next Tuesday's (4/26) class.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Lecture Notes
Since I failed to finish commenting on Max Weber in class yesterday (Tues. 4/12), I am going to do so on the blog, as well as post my lecture notes on Chapter 8, Georg Simmel. Remember, that I extended the deadline for the families to formulate a response to those articles on Weber's predictions about the future until next Tues., 4/19. But remember that essay II is due tomorrow.
________________
H. In connection with "ideal types," the authors briefly introduce an important aspect of Weber's work, which is his defense of the "DOCTRINE OF VALUE NEUTRALITY." It should be noted in this regard that "ideal types" are NOT ethical prescriptions, and so do not violate his argument that sociologists should be value neutral.
1. As the authors note at the bottom of p. 176: "Weber was particularly opposed to sociologists using their work to advance their own personal beliefs and values: the 'prophet and the demagogoue do not belong on the academic platform.' The 'elementary duty of scientific self-control' demanded a 'sharp distinction between the logically comparative analysis of reality by ideal-types in the logical sense and the value-judgment of reality on the basis of ideals.'"
2. This has essentially been the position on this issue that has been embraced by mainstream sociology. However, there was some challenge to this in the 1960s and 70s, and what emerged was a compromise position -- what I would call the "LET'S BE HONEST" position, which suggests that sociologists be honest about what biases they may have and by openly admitting them thereby allow people to take that into account in reading and evaluating their work. (which, I believe, is where the authors of this text stand, as reflected in their early discussion of the difference between IDEOLOGY and SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY.
I. On the issues of gender and race, it appears Weber was more enlightened than many of his colleagues.
1. Regarding gender, and probably because of the influence of his wife who was a feminist, he did embrace a more egalitarian view of the marriage relationship. He viewed women "primarily as human beings and only secondarily as members of the opposite sex." (p. 189) Nonetheless, he did not get away entirely from a "naturalistic" view of woman as primarily a sexual object, and he personally strayed from his monogamous relationship.
2. On race, I applaud his clear recognition of race as a SOCIAL, not a biological distinction ( a view that was not widely accepted at that time). See p. 188. And he makes a very telling point about race relations in the U.S. -- why race prejudice was deeper among poor whites. See bottom, p. 188.
Chapter 8: The Sociology of Form and Content: Simmel
A. A good way to introduce my brief exploration of the work of Georg Simmel would be to quote the very last sentence in the chapter -- "More than anything else,...Simmel was a philosophical sociologist concerned with how human beings can define their humanity in the context of an overwhelmingly objective culture." (p. 220)
B. Like Weber, Simmel acknowledged the growing industrialization, bureaucratization, rationalization of modern society (objective culture) especially in the modern metropolis, and how individuals experience or confront this.
1. He recognized that in many ways these developments represented progress, yet they also contributed to alienation and anomie. Or, to put this in somewhat different terms: to what extent has the scale of modern life overwhelmed and dominated individuals, and how can and should individuals respond to this?
C. Biographically, the authors highlight Simmel's struggles to secure an academic position, a major obstacle being the prevailing anti-Semitism, and the association of sociology with socialism, and in turn, socialism with Jewish intellectuals.
1. But there can be no doubt that Simmel lived in the midst of a vibrant intellectual community, and he himself would have a significant impact on several prominent, later sociologists such as Karl Mannheim, George Herbert Mead, and the Chicago School in general. His essay, "Metropolis and Mental Life" was itself highly influential in the development of urban sociology at the University of Chicago.
D. "Simmel regarded sociology as the study of social interaction." Although Simmel acknowledged that an entity called "society" did exist which confronts the individual, yet "...it was an entity whose 'reality' lay in the minds and actions of individual human beings." (p. 202)
1. Although I would not necessarily endorse the use of "dialectical" here, the authors go on to describe the relation of the individual to society in these terms. See mid., p. 203. (And I would question whether these "most private, internal impulses" are really independent of the larger social order.)
2. And on the very next page (p. 204 mid.), the authors underscore that for Simmel we all have a part of the self that is "outside" society, although this non-social element varies from person to person. (again, I wonder about that.)
E. Simmel also made some interesting observations about CONFLICT, especially the peculiar nature of conflict in Western societies, which is especially evident in modern metropolitan life. The following passage also captures well the phenomenon of the growing RATIONALIZATION and impersonality of modern life. See 2nd paragraph, p. 206.
F. Along these same lines, Simmel made some interesting and relevant points about modern society in his book, "The Philosophy of Money" (1900), which explored the way in which social relations are transformed by the modern money economy.
1. On the face of it, this sounds like Marx and his "historical materialism." But Simmel characterized his effort as getting "beneath" historical materialism to the more basic level of EXCHANGE as a form of social interaction among individuals.
2. Although he recognized ways in which exchange based on money might benefit society (p. 208), on balance, he saw its impact as negative (in terms not all that different from Marx). See top half of p. 209.
G. The so-called money economy becomes an important part of what Simmel calls OBECTIVE CULTURE, which comes to dominate individuals and closes off possibilities of individual expression and creativity. See 3rd & 4th paragraphs, p. 210, which brings out some of the adverse consequences of the domination of a money economy and objective culture.
1. Although such alienation seems most closely connected with capitalism, Simmel (like Weber) recognized the alienating potential of socialism and communism, which represent other forms of the domination of the individual by objective culture.
H. Simmel's views on gender appear to put him in the category of so many other theorists, endorsing a version of "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" thesis -- that women are more "closely and deeply rooted in the dark, primitive forces of nature than are men." (p. 215) See also the very bottom of p. 215.
I. Finally, I believe the authors do a nice job of bringing together some of these broad themes in Simmel's work -- See top half of p. 219.
______________________________________
That brings us up to Section V & Chapter 9, which is where I will pick up tomorrow (Thurs., 4/14). Be sure to incorporate the above notes in your class notes, and pay special attention to the cited passages, especially to understand Simmel.
________________
H. In connection with "ideal types," the authors briefly introduce an important aspect of Weber's work, which is his defense of the "DOCTRINE OF VALUE NEUTRALITY." It should be noted in this regard that "ideal types" are NOT ethical prescriptions, and so do not violate his argument that sociologists should be value neutral.
1. As the authors note at the bottom of p. 176: "Weber was particularly opposed to sociologists using their work to advance their own personal beliefs and values: the 'prophet and the demagogoue do not belong on the academic platform.' The 'elementary duty of scientific self-control' demanded a 'sharp distinction between the logically comparative analysis of reality by ideal-types in the logical sense and the value-judgment of reality on the basis of ideals.'"
2. This has essentially been the position on this issue that has been embraced by mainstream sociology. However, there was some challenge to this in the 1960s and 70s, and what emerged was a compromise position -- what I would call the "LET'S BE HONEST" position, which suggests that sociologists be honest about what biases they may have and by openly admitting them thereby allow people to take that into account in reading and evaluating their work. (which, I believe, is where the authors of this text stand, as reflected in their early discussion of the difference between IDEOLOGY and SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY.
I. On the issues of gender and race, it appears Weber was more enlightened than many of his colleagues.
1. Regarding gender, and probably because of the influence of his wife who was a feminist, he did embrace a more egalitarian view of the marriage relationship. He viewed women "primarily as human beings and only secondarily as members of the opposite sex." (p. 189) Nonetheless, he did not get away entirely from a "naturalistic" view of woman as primarily a sexual object, and he personally strayed from his monogamous relationship.
2. On race, I applaud his clear recognition of race as a SOCIAL, not a biological distinction ( a view that was not widely accepted at that time). See p. 188. And he makes a very telling point about race relations in the U.S. -- why race prejudice was deeper among poor whites. See bottom, p. 188.
Chapter 8: The Sociology of Form and Content: Simmel
A. A good way to introduce my brief exploration of the work of Georg Simmel would be to quote the very last sentence in the chapter -- "More than anything else,...Simmel was a philosophical sociologist concerned with how human beings can define their humanity in the context of an overwhelmingly objective culture." (p. 220)
B. Like Weber, Simmel acknowledged the growing industrialization, bureaucratization, rationalization of modern society (objective culture) especially in the modern metropolis, and how individuals experience or confront this.
1. He recognized that in many ways these developments represented progress, yet they also contributed to alienation and anomie. Or, to put this in somewhat different terms: to what extent has the scale of modern life overwhelmed and dominated individuals, and how can and should individuals respond to this?
C. Biographically, the authors highlight Simmel's struggles to secure an academic position, a major obstacle being the prevailing anti-Semitism, and the association of sociology with socialism, and in turn, socialism with Jewish intellectuals.
1. But there can be no doubt that Simmel lived in the midst of a vibrant intellectual community, and he himself would have a significant impact on several prominent, later sociologists such as Karl Mannheim, George Herbert Mead, and the Chicago School in general. His essay, "Metropolis and Mental Life" was itself highly influential in the development of urban sociology at the University of Chicago.
D. "Simmel regarded sociology as the study of social interaction." Although Simmel acknowledged that an entity called "society" did exist which confronts the individual, yet "...it was an entity whose 'reality' lay in the minds and actions of individual human beings." (p. 202)
1. Although I would not necessarily endorse the use of "dialectical" here, the authors go on to describe the relation of the individual to society in these terms. See mid., p. 203. (And I would question whether these "most private, internal impulses" are really independent of the larger social order.)
2. And on the very next page (p. 204 mid.), the authors underscore that for Simmel we all have a part of the self that is "outside" society, although this non-social element varies from person to person. (again, I wonder about that.)
E. Simmel also made some interesting observations about CONFLICT, especially the peculiar nature of conflict in Western societies, which is especially evident in modern metropolitan life. The following passage also captures well the phenomenon of the growing RATIONALIZATION and impersonality of modern life. See 2nd paragraph, p. 206.
F. Along these same lines, Simmel made some interesting and relevant points about modern society in his book, "The Philosophy of Money" (1900), which explored the way in which social relations are transformed by the modern money economy.
1. On the face of it, this sounds like Marx and his "historical materialism." But Simmel characterized his effort as getting "beneath" historical materialism to the more basic level of EXCHANGE as a form of social interaction among individuals.
2. Although he recognized ways in which exchange based on money might benefit society (p. 208), on balance, he saw its impact as negative (in terms not all that different from Marx). See top half of p. 209.
G. The so-called money economy becomes an important part of what Simmel calls OBECTIVE CULTURE, which comes to dominate individuals and closes off possibilities of individual expression and creativity. See 3rd & 4th paragraphs, p. 210, which brings out some of the adverse consequences of the domination of a money economy and objective culture.
1. Although such alienation seems most closely connected with capitalism, Simmel (like Weber) recognized the alienating potential of socialism and communism, which represent other forms of the domination of the individual by objective culture.
H. Simmel's views on gender appear to put him in the category of so many other theorists, endorsing a version of "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" thesis -- that women are more "closely and deeply rooted in the dark, primitive forces of nature than are men." (p. 215) See also the very bottom of p. 215.
I. Finally, I believe the authors do a nice job of bringing together some of these broad themes in Simmel's work -- See top half of p. 219.
______________________________________
That brings us up to Section V & Chapter 9, which is where I will pick up tomorrow (Thurs., 4/14). Be sure to incorporate the above notes in your class notes, and pay special attention to the cited passages, especially to understand Simmel.
Monday, April 4, 2011
FAMILY ACTIVITY II
Before I describe Family Activity II, let me call your attention to the previous blog post on Marx and Marxism, which you need to check out.
FAMILY ACTIVITY II: In light of the two xerox handouts I will distribute in class tomorrow (Tues., 4/5)("The Calvinist Manifesto" & "The Worship of Success"), in addition to the text's treatment of this aspect of Weber's work, I want each family to (jointly) compose a 1-2 page response to a couple basic questions: (1) how close or far away do you believe we are from realizing Weber's prediction? and (2) would you agree with Fukuyama (in "The Calvinist Manifesto") that religion, especially in America, has not faded in importance and that religion in general has served as an effective countervailing force in limiting the spread of the so-called "iron cage," OR would you say we are more like Schmookler describes (in "The Worship of Success")in which worshipping success is entirely secular, divested of any religious significance?
I will give you some class time on Thursday (4/7) and Tuesday (4/12) to confer with family members and compose a response. Then, a week from Thursday (4/14) I want a representative from each family to present your response to the class. I am not expecting these responses to be polished but they should at least be coherent. I am NOT going to ask you to submit your responses in writing. Immediately following these presentations, we will vote on what you believe was the best, most insightful response. I would suggest you encourage your family members to be in attendance so they can vote. However, let me remind you that if everyone just votes for their family, that my vote will be the tie breaker. I hope and trust that you can set aside family loyalty and vote for another family's response if you believe it is the best. We will do this by secret ballot.
All participating family members will earn 5 points for this exercise. The winning family will receive 2 bonus points.
FAMILY ACTIVITY II: In light of the two xerox handouts I will distribute in class tomorrow (Tues., 4/5)("The Calvinist Manifesto" & "The Worship of Success"), in addition to the text's treatment of this aspect of Weber's work, I want each family to (jointly) compose a 1-2 page response to a couple basic questions: (1) how close or far away do you believe we are from realizing Weber's prediction? and (2) would you agree with Fukuyama (in "The Calvinist Manifesto") that religion, especially in America, has not faded in importance and that religion in general has served as an effective countervailing force in limiting the spread of the so-called "iron cage," OR would you say we are more like Schmookler describes (in "The Worship of Success")in which worshipping success is entirely secular, divested of any religious significance?
I will give you some class time on Thursday (4/7) and Tuesday (4/12) to confer with family members and compose a response. Then, a week from Thursday (4/14) I want a representative from each family to present your response to the class. I am not expecting these responses to be polished but they should at least be coherent. I am NOT going to ask you to submit your responses in writing. Immediately following these presentations, we will vote on what you believe was the best, most insightful response. I would suggest you encourage your family members to be in attendance so they can vote. However, let me remind you that if everyone just votes for their family, that my vote will be the tie breaker. I hope and trust that you can set aside family loyalty and vote for another family's response if you believe it is the best. We will do this by secret ballot.
All participating family members will earn 5 points for this exercise. The winning family will receive 2 bonus points.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Making Amends II & Chapter 6
I did not feel terribly good about my performance last Thursday (3/24) just before the break, so I am going to post my lecture notes, streamlined somewhat and hopefully clarified. Time permitting, I may also post my notes on Chapter 6, which I planned to cover quickly anyway. That will bring us up to Section IV: Sociological Theories of Complexity and Form and Chapter 7, which will be where we will pick up when we get back together again next week.
________________________
Before getting back to where I started last Thursday, with Jonathan Safran Foer's quote about alienation in our industrialized agricultural system, let me give you a couple nice passages on Marx's MATERIALISM (in general):
"Like other 19th-century social scientists from Comte to Spencer, he (rightly) insisted that societies, like organisms, were systems, composed of parts (social institutions). Each part was influenced by its relationship to the rest, and the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. But this left open the question as to whether all institutions were of equal weight, and of how the different institutions fitted one another. The search was on for a master principle analogous to natural selection in biological evolution. For idealists, the dynamic of social development was humanity's intellectual capacity. For Marx, it had to be 'material' -- and he found it, eventually, in the concept of the mode of production."
And....
"Marx's analysis of capitalism concentrated on the economy. As for the rest of the social order, he saw it as inevitable that the laws, the forms of the family, the political institutions, the belief systems, religious or secular, had to conform to the basic requirements of the economy: that the laws would protect property above all else, and work to the advantage of the rich, and would take contract -- developed to govern commercial relationships -- rather than say, custom or birth-right as the prototype of all other relationships, even of marriage; that workers' children would be educated only sufficiently to enable them to do manual jobs and to respect property and their superiors; that religion would tell the poor their troubles were due to their own sins, and would preach rewards for good living only in another life, etc." (This gives you some idea of how Marx thought these other institutions were shaped by the economy or material conditions. Unfortunately, Marx did not really flesh out these connections very much, but focused more specifically on exposing what he thought were the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system.)
And now back to where I began in class last Thursday (3/24):
5. To overcome this alienation (such as described in Foer's passage from the midterm exam), one would need to overthrow the system that produces it. Replace capitalism with communism, or private property with common ownership of the means of production, which ultimately would restore meaningful labor to the masses of workers.
6. This change would also entail giving the masses the ability to develop all of their skills and talents (sometimes called Marx's "dream of the whole person"). And the passage from "The German Ideology" the authors quote (middle, p. 129) is one of Marx's most "dream-like" visions of a communist future. (Indeed, it sounds completely fanciful and unrealistic.)
H. The authors then go on to describe how Marx saw that capitalist system working -- how it necessarily leads to a situation where the rich become richer (eg., how the wealthy make money with money, "through investments and loans, the capitalist lives from the SURPLUS VALUE produced by the worker") and the poor become poorer, relatively speaking.
I. Marx's theories and predictions for the future are based on an optimistic view of human nature. He believed men to be good, essentially; it is society which has oppressed and alienated human beings that is bad. So, again, we need to re-make society (overthrow capitalism) in the image of the good in humanity.
J. "Marx and Engels,...can be viewed as both practical and ideological radicals stating that capitalist society ought to not just be tinkered with, but overthrown. Of course, they would argue that they were not ideologues at all, but only observers and interpreters -- theorists -- of the course of human history." (p. 133, top) (The above passage fits well with what the authors describe as "CRITICAL THEORY," which seeks to envision a better society and is critical of exisitng society but is also based on scientific observation.)
K. It's in the section on "Class, Gender, and Race" that the authors lay out Marx's view of revolution, as outlined in "The Communist Manifesto," which I stressed was basically an extreme political document intended to rally the workers to revolt, and not some scholarly treatise on capitalism and its fatal flaws.
1. Basically, historical change can be explained on the basis of class struggle (dialectical materialism). And what was happening in capitalism, Marx theorized, was that this class struggle was basically coming to a head -- two classes were becoming predominant: the bourgeoisie or capitalist and the proletariat or working class.
2. Although the authors do not use Marx's famous phrase, the capitalists were creating "the seeds of their own destruction." Creating the factories, bringing the masses of workers together in these factories, exploiting the workers for profit (which the system really demands)exacerbates alienation. Under the leadership of a few defectors form the bourgeoisie (such as Marx and Engels themselves) who understand this historical process, revolution will ensue. (Marx also referred to this leadership group as "the advanced sector of the proletariat.")
a.) Marx also recognized the need for an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism -- a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (socialism), which will have to manage things until conditions are ripe for the emergence of a classless, stateless communist society. (Which, as I noted, NEVER happened in the 20th or 21st century, for that matter. Most of the so-called "communist" states became just plain old dictatorships -- the revolutionaries who led the way just held on to power, and so Marx's goal was never realized, perhaps it is unrealizable.)
b.) The authors note that one reason the state did not wither away, as Marx predicted, is because the revolution was not worldwide and other (capitalist) states such as the U.S. saw this revolutionary socialist state as a threat. So they had to build up their military to defend themselves and sacrifice necessary economic development.
L. Regarding gender and the role of women, clearly Marx and Engels were more focused on class oppression. They did recognize women as oppressed but did not clearly identify women as members of the working class. Unfortunately, gender inequities remained in socialist countries after their revolutions. (Although I would say, on balance, women (especially in China) had more opportunities than generally was true in the West up until recent times.)
(Marx, and later Marxists, also saw class as more important than race. But W.E.B. DuBois was highly critical of this, noting that white working people in the U.S., even in the labor movement, were among the most racist. And he was not hopeful that some sort of working class revolution would inevitably lead to racial harmony.)
M. In general, Marx and Engels were big on ABOLISHING things such as private property, capitalism, religion, nationality, etc. But they were not so big on describing what would replace all these things they felt needed to be abolished. The nature of communist society was only superficially defined (eg., that vague, dream-like vision from "The German Ideology").
N. In relation to other theorists, the authors draw an instructive contrast with Durkheim and his concept of the DIVISION OF LABOR. *See top, p. 141. (can you run modern society without a complex division of labor, as Marx seems to imply?)
O. Clearly, Marx has been criticized or dismissed by capitalist writers who have pointed out the absurdity of his vision of a communist society. Of course, such criticism has the benefit of being promoted in the pervasive capitalist media.
1. Another writer (Ollman) suggests that distortions of Marx may be due, at least in part, to the limitations of our minds -- inability to grasp the whole picture.
P. I agree that "...we must not dismiss all questions about Marx and Engels as coming from either the unenlightened or those with a vested interest in capitalism." (p. 142) (but the immediate issues the authors, then, go on to to raise do not strike me as the most profound. More significant issues might be: Marx and Engels' failure to see how a communist revolution might fail, or exactly how would we make a transition to a communist social order.)
Q. Very generally, Marx and Engels can be given credit for bringing needed attention to the role of economics and class struggle in human affairs. And I don't believe it can be denied that they were perceptive about how business would come to dominate many aspects of society, such as Foer brings out in the case of agribusiness.
CHAPTER 6: MARXISM EXTENDED: LENIN AND LUXEMBURG
In this chapter we encounter two important thinkers and activists who not only were involved in trying to carry out Marx's ideas, but also added to Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism.
A. Lenin, of course, led the successful Russian revolution in 1917, and was the first leader of socialist Russia.
1. One thing that stands out about his leadership was his PRAGMATISM. Lenin was not a rigid ideologue who tried to institute socialism regardless of circumstances. *See bottom two paragraphs, p. 148.
B. Lenin also extended Marx's analysis of capitalism to include IMPERIALISM, which extended capitalism's control to underdeveloped parts of the world in Asia, Africa, and Latin America: "Such colonialism (or imperialism), accompanied by uneven economic development, is the essence of modern monopoly capitalism, the international version of the class struggle within nation states." (p. 150) That is, the ultimate clash would be between capitalist nations and poor nations. (This aspect of Lenin's thought impressed Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese leader who was seeking support to oust the French who were the colonial oppressors of the Vietnamese at the time.)
1. Today, of course, colonialism has largely been replaced by multinational corporations operating independently, with little national allegiance.
2. Also interesting is how Lenin saw the connection between Western capitalism, colonialism, and racial oppression such as was evident in the U.S.. He influenced the American Communist Party in the 1920s to take a strong stand against racism and segregation in this country.
C. Lenin defended the need for a "VANGUARD" and a "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" to lead the new fledgling socialist state in the direction of a truly classless, communist state.
D. Unfortunately, toward the end of his life, Lenin saw this proletarian dictatorship becoming increasingly bureaucratized; the Communist Party was "displaying a passion for bossing." Of course, with Stalin's rise to power, this bossing becomes institutionalized.
E. Rosa Luxemburg was a formidable Marxist interllectual and activist who concentrated her efforts in Germany. Among her more perceptive contributions were:
1. Her criticism of REFORMISM -- that is, tinkering with capitalism, allowing some "bourgeois-granted goals" -- that this would only forestall the revolution, which would be the working class's only real salvation. (Could say, today, that the working class has largely been "bought off" by such concessions, and the capitalists are still essentially in control.)
2. Luxemburg also recognized imperialism (is "globalization" today masquerading as imperialism?) as a new phase of capitalist control. As such, imperialism was the mortal enemy of the proletariat of all countries.
3. She saw MILITARISM as a necessary development in capitalist society to relieve some of the economic pressures created by overproduction (not all that different from President Eisenhower's warning about the growing power of the "military-industrial complex"). See mid., p. 159. "Thus, Luxemburg explained imperialism, militarism, and war as a single phenomenon of capital expansion and profit-making." (p. 159)
4. Finally, Luxemburg perceptively criticized Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" as being nothing more than a plain old dictatorship, and not the true workers' revolution. (Which is one of the themes of Warren Beatty's film "Reds" which came out in 1980.)
F. Rosa Luxemburg (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Lenin) foreshadows the later development of a variety of different Marxisms in the 20th century, some of which were highly critical of the Soviet Union and China, among other so-called Marxist states. (e.g., the Frankfurt School covered in Cahpter 16 of our text.)
_____________________________
That's all for now. Also be looking for a decription of our next short essay soon, either on this blog or in a blast email.
________________________
Before getting back to where I started last Thursday, with Jonathan Safran Foer's quote about alienation in our industrialized agricultural system, let me give you a couple nice passages on Marx's MATERIALISM (in general):
"Like other 19th-century social scientists from Comte to Spencer, he (rightly) insisted that societies, like organisms, were systems, composed of parts (social institutions). Each part was influenced by its relationship to the rest, and the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. But this left open the question as to whether all institutions were of equal weight, and of how the different institutions fitted one another. The search was on for a master principle analogous to natural selection in biological evolution. For idealists, the dynamic of social development was humanity's intellectual capacity. For Marx, it had to be 'material' -- and he found it, eventually, in the concept of the mode of production."
And....
"Marx's analysis of capitalism concentrated on the economy. As for the rest of the social order, he saw it as inevitable that the laws, the forms of the family, the political institutions, the belief systems, religious or secular, had to conform to the basic requirements of the economy: that the laws would protect property above all else, and work to the advantage of the rich, and would take contract -- developed to govern commercial relationships -- rather than say, custom or birth-right as the prototype of all other relationships, even of marriage; that workers' children would be educated only sufficiently to enable them to do manual jobs and to respect property and their superiors; that religion would tell the poor their troubles were due to their own sins, and would preach rewards for good living only in another life, etc." (This gives you some idea of how Marx thought these other institutions were shaped by the economy or material conditions. Unfortunately, Marx did not really flesh out these connections very much, but focused more specifically on exposing what he thought were the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system.)
And now back to where I began in class last Thursday (3/24):
5. To overcome this alienation (such as described in Foer's passage from the midterm exam), one would need to overthrow the system that produces it. Replace capitalism with communism, or private property with common ownership of the means of production, which ultimately would restore meaningful labor to the masses of workers.
6. This change would also entail giving the masses the ability to develop all of their skills and talents (sometimes called Marx's "dream of the whole person"). And the passage from "The German Ideology" the authors quote (middle, p. 129) is one of Marx's most "dream-like" visions of a communist future. (Indeed, it sounds completely fanciful and unrealistic.)
H. The authors then go on to describe how Marx saw that capitalist system working -- how it necessarily leads to a situation where the rich become richer (eg., how the wealthy make money with money, "through investments and loans, the capitalist lives from the SURPLUS VALUE produced by the worker") and the poor become poorer, relatively speaking.
I. Marx's theories and predictions for the future are based on an optimistic view of human nature. He believed men to be good, essentially; it is society which has oppressed and alienated human beings that is bad. So, again, we need to re-make society (overthrow capitalism) in the image of the good in humanity.
J. "Marx and Engels,...can be viewed as both practical and ideological radicals stating that capitalist society ought to not just be tinkered with, but overthrown. Of course, they would argue that they were not ideologues at all, but only observers and interpreters -- theorists -- of the course of human history." (p. 133, top) (The above passage fits well with what the authors describe as "CRITICAL THEORY," which seeks to envision a better society and is critical of exisitng society but is also based on scientific observation.)
K. It's in the section on "Class, Gender, and Race" that the authors lay out Marx's view of revolution, as outlined in "The Communist Manifesto," which I stressed was basically an extreme political document intended to rally the workers to revolt, and not some scholarly treatise on capitalism and its fatal flaws.
1. Basically, historical change can be explained on the basis of class struggle (dialectical materialism). And what was happening in capitalism, Marx theorized, was that this class struggle was basically coming to a head -- two classes were becoming predominant: the bourgeoisie or capitalist and the proletariat or working class.
2. Although the authors do not use Marx's famous phrase, the capitalists were creating "the seeds of their own destruction." Creating the factories, bringing the masses of workers together in these factories, exploiting the workers for profit (which the system really demands)exacerbates alienation. Under the leadership of a few defectors form the bourgeoisie (such as Marx and Engels themselves) who understand this historical process, revolution will ensue. (Marx also referred to this leadership group as "the advanced sector of the proletariat.")
a.) Marx also recognized the need for an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism -- a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (socialism), which will have to manage things until conditions are ripe for the emergence of a classless, stateless communist society. (Which, as I noted, NEVER happened in the 20th or 21st century, for that matter. Most of the so-called "communist" states became just plain old dictatorships -- the revolutionaries who led the way just held on to power, and so Marx's goal was never realized, perhaps it is unrealizable.)
b.) The authors note that one reason the state did not wither away, as Marx predicted, is because the revolution was not worldwide and other (capitalist) states such as the U.S. saw this revolutionary socialist state as a threat. So they had to build up their military to defend themselves and sacrifice necessary economic development.
L. Regarding gender and the role of women, clearly Marx and Engels were more focused on class oppression. They did recognize women as oppressed but did not clearly identify women as members of the working class. Unfortunately, gender inequities remained in socialist countries after their revolutions. (Although I would say, on balance, women (especially in China) had more opportunities than generally was true in the West up until recent times.)
(Marx, and later Marxists, also saw class as more important than race. But W.E.B. DuBois was highly critical of this, noting that white working people in the U.S., even in the labor movement, were among the most racist. And he was not hopeful that some sort of working class revolution would inevitably lead to racial harmony.)
M. In general, Marx and Engels were big on ABOLISHING things such as private property, capitalism, religion, nationality, etc. But they were not so big on describing what would replace all these things they felt needed to be abolished. The nature of communist society was only superficially defined (eg., that vague, dream-like vision from "The German Ideology").
N. In relation to other theorists, the authors draw an instructive contrast with Durkheim and his concept of the DIVISION OF LABOR. *See top, p. 141. (can you run modern society without a complex division of labor, as Marx seems to imply?)
O. Clearly, Marx has been criticized or dismissed by capitalist writers who have pointed out the absurdity of his vision of a communist society. Of course, such criticism has the benefit of being promoted in the pervasive capitalist media.
1. Another writer (Ollman) suggests that distortions of Marx may be due, at least in part, to the limitations of our minds -- inability to grasp the whole picture.
P. I agree that "...we must not dismiss all questions about Marx and Engels as coming from either the unenlightened or those with a vested interest in capitalism." (p. 142) (but the immediate issues the authors, then, go on to to raise do not strike me as the most profound. More significant issues might be: Marx and Engels' failure to see how a communist revolution might fail, or exactly how would we make a transition to a communist social order.)
Q. Very generally, Marx and Engels can be given credit for bringing needed attention to the role of economics and class struggle in human affairs. And I don't believe it can be denied that they were perceptive about how business would come to dominate many aspects of society, such as Foer brings out in the case of agribusiness.
CHAPTER 6: MARXISM EXTENDED: LENIN AND LUXEMBURG
In this chapter we encounter two important thinkers and activists who not only were involved in trying to carry out Marx's ideas, but also added to Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism.
A. Lenin, of course, led the successful Russian revolution in 1917, and was the first leader of socialist Russia.
1. One thing that stands out about his leadership was his PRAGMATISM. Lenin was not a rigid ideologue who tried to institute socialism regardless of circumstances. *See bottom two paragraphs, p. 148.
B. Lenin also extended Marx's analysis of capitalism to include IMPERIALISM, which extended capitalism's control to underdeveloped parts of the world in Asia, Africa, and Latin America: "Such colonialism (or imperialism), accompanied by uneven economic development, is the essence of modern monopoly capitalism, the international version of the class struggle within nation states." (p. 150) That is, the ultimate clash would be between capitalist nations and poor nations. (This aspect of Lenin's thought impressed Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese leader who was seeking support to oust the French who were the colonial oppressors of the Vietnamese at the time.)
1. Today, of course, colonialism has largely been replaced by multinational corporations operating independently, with little national allegiance.
2. Also interesting is how Lenin saw the connection between Western capitalism, colonialism, and racial oppression such as was evident in the U.S.. He influenced the American Communist Party in the 1920s to take a strong stand against racism and segregation in this country.
C. Lenin defended the need for a "VANGUARD" and a "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" to lead the new fledgling socialist state in the direction of a truly classless, communist state.
D. Unfortunately, toward the end of his life, Lenin saw this proletarian dictatorship becoming increasingly bureaucratized; the Communist Party was "displaying a passion for bossing." Of course, with Stalin's rise to power, this bossing becomes institutionalized.
E. Rosa Luxemburg was a formidable Marxist interllectual and activist who concentrated her efforts in Germany. Among her more perceptive contributions were:
1. Her criticism of REFORMISM -- that is, tinkering with capitalism, allowing some "bourgeois-granted goals" -- that this would only forestall the revolution, which would be the working class's only real salvation. (Could say, today, that the working class has largely been "bought off" by such concessions, and the capitalists are still essentially in control.)
2. Luxemburg also recognized imperialism (is "globalization" today masquerading as imperialism?) as a new phase of capitalist control. As such, imperialism was the mortal enemy of the proletariat of all countries.
3. She saw MILITARISM as a necessary development in capitalist society to relieve some of the economic pressures created by overproduction (not all that different from President Eisenhower's warning about the growing power of the "military-industrial complex"). See mid., p. 159. "Thus, Luxemburg explained imperialism, militarism, and war as a single phenomenon of capital expansion and profit-making." (p. 159)
4. Finally, Luxemburg perceptively criticized Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" as being nothing more than a plain old dictatorship, and not the true workers' revolution. (Which is one of the themes of Warren Beatty's film "Reds" which came out in 1980.)
F. Rosa Luxemburg (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Lenin) foreshadows the later development of a variety of different Marxisms in the 20th century, some of which were highly critical of the Soviet Union and China, among other so-called Marxist states. (e.g., the Frankfurt School covered in Cahpter 16 of our text.)
_____________________________
That's all for now. Also be looking for a decription of our next short essay soon, either on this blog or in a blast email.
Friday, March 18, 2011
FAMILY QUESTIONS FOR THE MIDTERM
Thanks for getting your questions in in a timely manner. I was able to work through them and make my selections. You will note in some instances I did a substantial amount of editing, even changing the question slightly. Also, even though some family members were missing-in-action, I will give them credit. Perhaps on the next family exercise these MIAs can carry the load.
RED FAMILY (Holly, Alex, Peter, Jamar) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify TWO of the three ideas that the positivist, evolutionary, and functional theories, featured in Section II of our text, contributed to sociological theory. (2)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following: (1) society is orderly and rational, and our job is to understand it scientifically as it is. (2) society evolves or changes slowly and corrects its own problems. (3) society is like an organism with interrelated parts that meet needs and perform functions.
2. Briefly describe the basic difference between the conservative view of society and the view of the Enlightenment thinkers, as brought out in the first proposition from the xerox handout on the 10 propositions about society stemming from the conservative reaction to the Enlightenment. (2)
ANSWER: Conservatives were SOCIAL REALISTS, who believed society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it, whereas the Enlightenment thinkers were SOCIAL NOMINALISTS, who believed only individuals exist and society is just a name one gives to the interrelationship among individuals.
BLUE FAMILY (Wilson, Kelly, Lauren, Tim) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify and briefly describe TWO of the three stages of Comte's law of societal evolution. (4)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following:
THEOLOGICAL (or fictitious) STAGE: Man believed in spiritual or supernatural forces behind natural phenomena, which corresponded with a theocratic form of government -- leaders thought to have special knowledge or connections with the spirit realm. Order but no progress.
METAPHYSICAL (or abstract) STAGE: rejects spiritual or supernatural explanation of the world in favor of one based on philosophical principles; ultimately gives rise to democratic ideas (revolutionary and critical). Progress but no order.
POSITIVISTIC (or scientific) STAGE: in the process of being born, where factual, scientific explanation of the world takes hold and scientists (especially sociologists) need to take charge of society. Order and progress.
2. Briefly explain the difference between "repressive" sanctions (connected with primitive or traditional society) and "restitutive" sanctions (connected with modern society). (2)
ANSWER: Repressive sanctions stem from penal law and focus on punishing (harming or killing) someone who violates the law, whereas restitutive sanctions are more concerned with restoring the previous state of affairs rather than merely punishing someone.
ORANGE FAMILY (Katie, John, Stephanie, Terry) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. According to Durkheim, what was primarily responsible for the growth of the division of labor and subsequent development of modern society? (1)
ANSWER: increasing population density
2. Describe the difference between sociological theory and ideology. (2)
ANSWER: ideology is value-laden, while sociological theory is not -- sociological theory strives to be objective.
3. Briefly explain or describe ONE of the analogies Comte draws between his stages of societal evolution and three stages of human life. (2)
ANSWER: Any one of the following:
(1)theological -- childhood, because children tend to see the world as mysterious, inhabited by spirits
(2)metaphysical -- adolescence, because young people tend to be imaginative, idealistic, also critical of and reject authority.
(3)positivistic -- adult, because adults tend to be more realistic, have more experience, factual, more mature.
GREEN FAMILY (T.J., Kit, Brianna, William) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. Among the three "Research Traditions" the authors identify in the first chapter is "Critical Theory." What is "Critical Theory?" (2)
ANSWER: Critical theory rejects the idea that knowledge can be objective and in contrast to positivism which can only reveal how to reach goals but is morally indifferent to the goals themselves, critical theory attempts to discover what these goals should be, or seeks to envision a better society.
2. What is social contract theory? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that humans had formed together and decided instead of living in an unorganized, chaotic, insecure state of nature that they would give up some of this natural freedom in return for stability and security of the state.
3. What is social realism? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it.
_______________________
That's it. REMEMBER, ALL OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL BE ON THE MIDTERM EXAM. See you next Tuesday.
RED FAMILY (Holly, Alex, Peter, Jamar) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify TWO of the three ideas that the positivist, evolutionary, and functional theories, featured in Section II of our text, contributed to sociological theory. (2)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following: (1) society is orderly and rational, and our job is to understand it scientifically as it is. (2) society evolves or changes slowly and corrects its own problems. (3) society is like an organism with interrelated parts that meet needs and perform functions.
2. Briefly describe the basic difference between the conservative view of society and the view of the Enlightenment thinkers, as brought out in the first proposition from the xerox handout on the 10 propositions about society stemming from the conservative reaction to the Enlightenment. (2)
ANSWER: Conservatives were SOCIAL REALISTS, who believed society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it, whereas the Enlightenment thinkers were SOCIAL NOMINALISTS, who believed only individuals exist and society is just a name one gives to the interrelationship among individuals.
BLUE FAMILY (Wilson, Kelly, Lauren, Tim) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify and briefly describe TWO of the three stages of Comte's law of societal evolution. (4)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following:
THEOLOGICAL (or fictitious) STAGE: Man believed in spiritual or supernatural forces behind natural phenomena, which corresponded with a theocratic form of government -- leaders thought to have special knowledge or connections with the spirit realm. Order but no progress.
METAPHYSICAL (or abstract) STAGE: rejects spiritual or supernatural explanation of the world in favor of one based on philosophical principles; ultimately gives rise to democratic ideas (revolutionary and critical). Progress but no order.
POSITIVISTIC (or scientific) STAGE: in the process of being born, where factual, scientific explanation of the world takes hold and scientists (especially sociologists) need to take charge of society. Order and progress.
2. Briefly explain the difference between "repressive" sanctions (connected with primitive or traditional society) and "restitutive" sanctions (connected with modern society). (2)
ANSWER: Repressive sanctions stem from penal law and focus on punishing (harming or killing) someone who violates the law, whereas restitutive sanctions are more concerned with restoring the previous state of affairs rather than merely punishing someone.
ORANGE FAMILY (Katie, John, Stephanie, Terry) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. According to Durkheim, what was primarily responsible for the growth of the division of labor and subsequent development of modern society? (1)
ANSWER: increasing population density
2. Describe the difference between sociological theory and ideology. (2)
ANSWER: ideology is value-laden, while sociological theory is not -- sociological theory strives to be objective.
3. Briefly explain or describe ONE of the analogies Comte draws between his stages of societal evolution and three stages of human life. (2)
ANSWER: Any one of the following:
(1)theological -- childhood, because children tend to see the world as mysterious, inhabited by spirits
(2)metaphysical -- adolescence, because young people tend to be imaginative, idealistic, also critical of and reject authority.
(3)positivistic -- adult, because adults tend to be more realistic, have more experience, factual, more mature.
GREEN FAMILY (T.J., Kit, Brianna, William) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. Among the three "Research Traditions" the authors identify in the first chapter is "Critical Theory." What is "Critical Theory?" (2)
ANSWER: Critical theory rejects the idea that knowledge can be objective and in contrast to positivism which can only reveal how to reach goals but is morally indifferent to the goals themselves, critical theory attempts to discover what these goals should be, or seeks to envision a better society.
2. What is social contract theory? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that humans had formed together and decided instead of living in an unorganized, chaotic, insecure state of nature that they would give up some of this natural freedom in return for stability and security of the state.
3. What is social realism? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it.
_______________________
That's it. REMEMBER, ALL OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL BE ON THE MIDTERM EXAM. See you next Tuesday.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Durkheim Quotes & Lecture Notes
Before posting the passages that I quoted in class yesterday, let me remind everyone to check out the previous blog post which describes the family activity of making up questions for the midterm exam. I TRUST YOU'LL ALL BE PREPARED TO BEGIN BRAINSTORMING SOME QUESTIONS WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS NEXT TUESDAY, 3/15.
______________________
The first quote was from Durkheim in which he explicitly utilizes the "organic analogy" in connection with describing the role of "restitutive law" in modern society.
"This law (restitutive) definitely plays a role in society analogous to that played by the central nervous system in the organism. The latter has as its task, in effect, the regulation of the different functions in the body in such a way as to make them harmonize."
The next passage, from another secondary source on Durkheim, highlights the point I was belaboring yesterday in class -- that Durkheim recognized the limitations of the division of labor to bring about "organic solidarity" by itself:
"By the end of "The Division of Labor in Society," it is clear that Durkheim had doubts about the possibility of organic solidarity emerging automatically from the increasing division of labor. It would require a more conscious effort of planning and reform to bring it about." and that additional effort would mainly be in the form of a "moral education."
One of the major problems in modern society that needed to be addressed was the condition Durkheim called "anomie," and this next passage, from a different secondary source, has a good description of anomie that is lacking in our text:
"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-interested) 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, again, sociology could play a key role in developing a new morality (or "science of ethics") to cultivate the "individual's socially oriented part." I would also add that "anomie" is often simply defined as a condition of "normlessness," or breakdown of moral guidelines.
I went on from here to present some observations about what Durkheim had in mind in terms of a moral education. So, let me continue with some additional lecture notes on Durkheim:
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ("The Rules of Sociological Method")
A. First, let me note that we are NOT talking about a "how to" book on research methods, but more of a philosophical manifesto for sociology, defining what was unique about sociology, how sociologists look at society.
B. Durkheim's methodology rests solidly on a foundation of SOCIAL REALISM -- "...society has a reality sui generis -- that is an objective reality apart from the individuals within it." (p. 96) as Durkheim himself goes on to observe in his own words.
1. More specifically, he defined sociology as the science of institutions, of their genesis and functioning. (as we'll see later, Ahrens will likewise focus on institutions, or what he calls "corporate persons.")
C. Another concept that logically connects with the above is that of SOCIAL FACTS, which may be intangible but are nonetheless real things that have a coercive effect on individuals. See bottom, p.96 - top, p.97.
D. And Durkheim urged sociologists to study the FUNCTION of social facts -- that is, objectively, what role they play in society (and not in terms to some predetermined purpose or end, meaning Durkheim was rejecting TELEOLOGY).
E. And, ultimately, we want to understand the cause(s) of social facts.
METHODOLOGY DEMONSTRATED: "SUICIDE"
("Suicide" did provide a working example of the application of his methodology, but I would say he also saw "Suicide" as a vindication of sorts of his SOCIAL REALISM.)
A. The authors note briefly how Durkheim demonstrated that other explanations of this phenomenon (insanity, imitation, etc.) were inadequate. By examining SUICIDE RATES (itself a "social fact"), we could trace fluctuations in these rates to social conditions. Durkheim identified 4 types, among which I would say "anomic suicide" is the most significant.
1. EGOISTIC SUICIDE: "The individual is isolated and potentially suicidal because the "ties uniting him with others are slackened or broken" because of the "weakening of the social fabric." -- or simply, "excessive individualism" which modern, industrial society tended to encourage. (eg., higher rates among Protestants - a more individualistic religion, higher rates among urban dwellers, unmarried men.)
2. ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE: "...is the obverse of egoistic suicide. It is the result of the excessive integration of the individual in the group." (eg., more prevalent in societies bound by the "collective conscience," soldiers generally, later examples: Japanese kami-kaze pilots WWII, cults (Jim Jones Temple), even Islamic terrorists/suicide bombers.) This type of suicide is a great example of the power of social pressure.
3. ANOMIC SUICIDE: "...is a result of the breakdown of the moral continuity (or moral guidelines) and the resulting disturbance of social equilibrium." Society does not exercise the necessary restraint on individuals and their desires. (eg., businessmen, liberal professions, celebrities, espcially those who become suddenly famous.)
4. FATALISTIC SUICIDE: the obverse of anomic suicide. Results from excessive or oppressive social regulation; no hope for the future. (eg., slaves, young husbands, childless, unmarried women.)
Overall: Durkheim sets these types up as opposites of each other:
egoistic -- altruistic
anomic -- fatalistic
And clearly, he sees egoistic and anomic forms more prevalent in modern society.
See top, p. 100.
B. Interesting how this relates to marriage and divorce. Generally speaking, Durkheim found marriage (from the standpoint of suicide) to be GOOD FOR MEN BUT BAD FOR WOMEN. Nonetheless, he went on to propose marriage be made more restrictive by eliminating divorce, even though that might lead to more women committing suicide. Sort of a "lesser evil argument" showing a distinct male bias.
GENDER DIFFERENTIATION:
A. As the above point about suicide and marriage suggests, Durkheim accepted the notion that there were fundamental physical and mental differences between the sexes which were natural or biologically based, which meant men and women were suited to different tasks in social life.
B. "Women's domestic role was 'natural' and functional in the logic of progressive specialization, as well as being important to the moral health of society." (p. 112)
C. Durkheim also appears to have bought into the stereotype of women as closer to nature; men more rational and intellectual. And in this respect, if one of the marks of social progress is control of nature, then it is a sign of progress that men control women.
D. I believe it is undeniable that Durkheim made some significant contributions to sociology and explored some important issues regarding the transition to modern society, but on the gender issue I fully concur with the authors' assessment --
"Like so many classical sociologists, Durkheim's sociological imagination seems to have deserted him when it comes to the question of gender." (p. 114)
___________________________
That brings us up to the critique and conclusions section, which is where I will pick up in class on Tuesday, 3/15, and then get into Chapter 5. Finally, DON'T FORGET TO CHECK THE PREVIOUS BLOG POST.
______________________
The first quote was from Durkheim in which he explicitly utilizes the "organic analogy" in connection with describing the role of "restitutive law" in modern society.
"This law (restitutive) definitely plays a role in society analogous to that played by the central nervous system in the organism. The latter has as its task, in effect, the regulation of the different functions in the body in such a way as to make them harmonize."
The next passage, from another secondary source on Durkheim, highlights the point I was belaboring yesterday in class -- that Durkheim recognized the limitations of the division of labor to bring about "organic solidarity" by itself:
"By the end of "The Division of Labor in Society," it is clear that Durkheim had doubts about the possibility of organic solidarity emerging automatically from the increasing division of labor. It would require a more conscious effort of planning and reform to bring it about." and that additional effort would mainly be in the form of a "moral education."
One of the major problems in modern society that needed to be addressed was the condition Durkheim called "anomie," and this next passage, from a different secondary source, has a good description of anomie that is lacking in our text:
"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-interested) 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, again, sociology could play a key role in developing a new morality (or "science of ethics") to cultivate the "individual's socially oriented part." I would also add that "anomie" is often simply defined as a condition of "normlessness," or breakdown of moral guidelines.
I went on from here to present some observations about what Durkheim had in mind in terms of a moral education. So, let me continue with some additional lecture notes on Durkheim:
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ("The Rules of Sociological Method")
A. First, let me note that we are NOT talking about a "how to" book on research methods, but more of a philosophical manifesto for sociology, defining what was unique about sociology, how sociologists look at society.
B. Durkheim's methodology rests solidly on a foundation of SOCIAL REALISM -- "...society has a reality sui generis -- that is an objective reality apart from the individuals within it." (p. 96) as Durkheim himself goes on to observe in his own words.
1. More specifically, he defined sociology as the science of institutions, of their genesis and functioning. (as we'll see later, Ahrens will likewise focus on institutions, or what he calls "corporate persons.")
C. Another concept that logically connects with the above is that of SOCIAL FACTS, which may be intangible but are nonetheless real things that have a coercive effect on individuals. See bottom, p.96 - top, p.97.
D. And Durkheim urged sociologists to study the FUNCTION of social facts -- that is, objectively, what role they play in society (and not in terms to some predetermined purpose or end, meaning Durkheim was rejecting TELEOLOGY).
E. And, ultimately, we want to understand the cause(s) of social facts.
METHODOLOGY DEMONSTRATED: "SUICIDE"
("Suicide" did provide a working example of the application of his methodology, but I would say he also saw "Suicide" as a vindication of sorts of his SOCIAL REALISM.)
A. The authors note briefly how Durkheim demonstrated that other explanations of this phenomenon (insanity, imitation, etc.) were inadequate. By examining SUICIDE RATES (itself a "social fact"), we could trace fluctuations in these rates to social conditions. Durkheim identified 4 types, among which I would say "anomic suicide" is the most significant.
1. EGOISTIC SUICIDE: "The individual is isolated and potentially suicidal because the "ties uniting him with others are slackened or broken" because of the "weakening of the social fabric." -- or simply, "excessive individualism" which modern, industrial society tended to encourage. (eg., higher rates among Protestants - a more individualistic religion, higher rates among urban dwellers, unmarried men.)
2. ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE: "...is the obverse of egoistic suicide. It is the result of the excessive integration of the individual in the group." (eg., more prevalent in societies bound by the "collective conscience," soldiers generally, later examples: Japanese kami-kaze pilots WWII, cults (Jim Jones Temple), even Islamic terrorists/suicide bombers.) This type of suicide is a great example of the power of social pressure.
3. ANOMIC SUICIDE: "...is a result of the breakdown of the moral continuity (or moral guidelines) and the resulting disturbance of social equilibrium." Society does not exercise the necessary restraint on individuals and their desires. (eg., businessmen, liberal professions, celebrities, espcially those who become suddenly famous.)
4. FATALISTIC SUICIDE: the obverse of anomic suicide. Results from excessive or oppressive social regulation; no hope for the future. (eg., slaves, young husbands, childless, unmarried women.)
Overall: Durkheim sets these types up as opposites of each other:
egoistic -- altruistic
anomic -- fatalistic
And clearly, he sees egoistic and anomic forms more prevalent in modern society.
See top, p. 100.
B. Interesting how this relates to marriage and divorce. Generally speaking, Durkheim found marriage (from the standpoint of suicide) to be GOOD FOR MEN BUT BAD FOR WOMEN. Nonetheless, he went on to propose marriage be made more restrictive by eliminating divorce, even though that might lead to more women committing suicide. Sort of a "lesser evil argument" showing a distinct male bias.
GENDER DIFFERENTIATION:
A. As the above point about suicide and marriage suggests, Durkheim accepted the notion that there were fundamental physical and mental differences between the sexes which were natural or biologically based, which meant men and women were suited to different tasks in social life.
B. "Women's domestic role was 'natural' and functional in the logic of progressive specialization, as well as being important to the moral health of society." (p. 112)
C. Durkheim also appears to have bought into the stereotype of women as closer to nature; men more rational and intellectual. And in this respect, if one of the marks of social progress is control of nature, then it is a sign of progress that men control women.
D. I believe it is undeniable that Durkheim made some significant contributions to sociology and explored some important issues regarding the transition to modern society, but on the gender issue I fully concur with the authors' assessment --
"Like so many classical sociologists, Durkheim's sociological imagination seems to have deserted him when it comes to the question of gender." (p. 114)
___________________________
That brings us up to the critique and conclusions section, which is where I will pick up in class on Tuesday, 3/15, and then get into Chapter 5. Finally, DON'T FORGET TO CHECK THE PREVIOUS BLOG POST.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
First Family Activity: Making Up Questions for the Midterm Exam
I want each of the four families (listed below) to come up with FIVE short-answer questions for the midterm exam from anything we have covered since the beginning of the term, which would include mainly lecture notes, blog material, xerox handouts, and even Chapter 5 in the text (which I plan to get to next week). This is an exercise designed to put you in my shoes, so to speak, and consider what you believe students should know or be tested on from what we have covered in this course so far. I'll throw out some samples of short-answer questions in class, so you have some idea what I am looking for. But I can tell you what I do NOT want. I do NOT want open-ended, opinion questions, NO true-false or multiple-choice (but I will accept fill-in-the-blank). I will give the families class-time next Tuesday, 3/15 & Thursday, 3/17 to brainstorm some questions and come to a consensus on the best five questions. Each of the families will, then, submit to me in writing or via email your five (AND ONLY FIVE) questions AND ANSWERS. I will need these questions and answers NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MARCH 18TH BY NOON. I will try to select at least two questions from each family for inclusion on the midterm exam. For every additional question I select, that family will earn a bonus point and have the added benefit of knowing more of the questions on the exam. So, try to put some effort into this. I will post the questions and answers I selected on this blog no later than SUNDAY, MARCH 20TH, so you can study them in preparation for the midterm exam which will be given on TUESDAY, MARCH 22ND. This exercise is worth 7 points, and you must participate in order to earn these points.
FAMILIES: BLUE: Kelly Berry, Wilson Hood, Tim Johnson, Lauren Watts
GREEN: Kit Candler, T.J. Dill, Brianna Grant, William James
RED: Jamar Diggs, Holly Holladay, Peter McGiffin, Alex Rogers
ORANGE: Terry Martin, Katie McChesney, John Robinson, Stephanie Walrath
FAMILIES: BLUE: Kelly Berry, Wilson Hood, Tim Johnson, Lauren Watts
GREEN: Kit Candler, T.J. Dill, Brianna Grant, William James
RED: Jamar Diggs, Holly Holladay, Peter McGiffin, Alex Rogers
ORANGE: Terry Martin, Katie McChesney, John Robinson, Stephanie Walrath
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)