The point of this exercise, as most of your recognized in one way or another in your comments and examples, was to make you consider how the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts, a view which is premised on the interrelated nature of reality, especially social reality. In this regard, I would say that missing the whole or big picture (the forest) by focusing on the details (trees) -- or looking at facts as separate and distinct -- is tantamount to misunderstanding. Let me cite a few statements (anonymously), from among all the comments posted, which I believe clearly support my point:
(1) "In college especially, I have come to realize that understanding the details of a subject is not helpful if you don't have an understanding of the subject as a whole and can see how the details relate to one another." (to which I would add, that those details only take on meaning in the context of that larger whole.)
(2) Understanding the body as a whole or system gives meaning to the various parts -- from major organs to minute genes, or organs and genes take on meaning in the context of the whole organism. As we'll see, some sociological theorists have suggested that, like the body, society is a whole or system comprised of many interrelated parts.
(3) "...often we unduly focus our attention towards a small aspect of society, while failing to appreciate its interconnectedness with other facets." This may be a problem when we attempt to address a social problem such as homelessness by endorsing a policy such as rent control as the solution ( a sort of "magic bullet") and not realize the impact such a policy may have on the housing market, or, I would also note, not treating other aspects of the problem of homelessness such as the often untreated mental problems homeless people often suffer from.
(4) Autistic children who tend to focus on the parts of objects rather than whole objects contributes to their lack of social skills because they are in a sense disconnected from reality or the whole.
Finally, let me go back to the example of "nutritionism," which I referred to earlier in illustrating the notion of IDEOLOGY. In this case, however, nutritionism is criticized as being based on REDUCTIONIST science. In his book, "In Defense of Food," Michael Pollan is critical of what he calls "nutritionism" because it is based on a reductionist science approach that focuses on nutrients in isolation from the foods which contain them. He makes a plea for us to focus more on whole foods and the context in which these whole foods are grown and marketed. Pollan comments:
"The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science, points out Marion Nestle, a New York University nutritionist, 'is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of the food, the food out of the context of the diet, and the diet out of the context of the lifestyle.'" And, then, a bit later --
"...if you're a nutrition scientist you do the only thing you can do given the tools at your disposal: Break the thing down into its component parts and study these one by one, even if that means ignoring the subtle interactions and contexts and the fact that the whole may well be more than, or maybe different from, the sum of the parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science." (p. 62)
Finally, the fact is: "...people don't eat nutrients; they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently from the nutrients they contain." (p. 63)
Unfortunately, I believe many sociologists also get sidetracked in "reductionist science" when they try to reduce that complex, interrelated social reality into a few variables and study (or seek to correlate) those variables in isolation from the whole.
This general point about focusing on the whole and the system of relations that constitute the whole also underlies a point Prof. E. Ahrens (who we'll be reading near the end of the term) stresses about the nature of explanation. Prof. Ahrens says, "The essence of explanation is to say wht things are and to define them in and through their relations to other phenomena or forms of phenomena."
So, in the final analysis, I would contend that any social theory which misses or ignores the forest for the trees is ultimately incomplete and inadequate.
_______________________________________
PLEASE COPY OR PRINT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND INSERT THEM IN YOUR NOTES WHERE I FIRST ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE OF THE "FOREST AND TREES" IN THE TEXT.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Follow-up & A Few Lecture Notes
FOLLOW-UP:
One final comment about "social realism" vs. "nominalism," referred to in the first of those propositions about society, which I commented on yesterday (Tues., 2/22) in class: remember that I drew a parallel with the debate between the Catholic Church (representing the "social realist" point of view -- that the Church is a reality over and above individual followers) and the Protestant Reformation (representing the "nominalist" view -- that the individual believer is the foundation). Proposition #8 from that same handout alludes to this as well. Check it out.
A FEW LECTURE NOTES: In order to get a head start on covering Auguste Comte tomorrow, I am going to post some of my lecture notes on his biography and his notion of the "hierarchy of the sciences."
Auguste Comte (1798-1857)
A. Overall, Comte's biography does not sound like someone credited with founding a whole new scientific discipline, especially when the authors suggest his love life may have inspired his "Religion of Humanity" idea. Whether or not there is any truth to that, I would still maintain that his advocacy of this new religion was logically consistent with his view of the "Law of Human Progress," or Law of Societal Evolution. Where he may have "gone off the rails," so to speak, was in preaching it or regarding himself as the "high priest" of this new religion.
1. In his favor, I would point out that Comte was a very precocious child and his education in all of the sciences was very broad and deep. In fact, he supported himself as a tutor in mathematics. He never had a regular job in academia -- he was on the outside looking in, which may have contributed to his strident tone.
B. Like Saint-Simon, Comte believed that a new science was needed to discover invariable social laws that applied to society. He, of course, dubbed this new science "sociology" and believed it would rightfully take its place at the top of the HIERARCY OF THE SCIENCES. (see, mid. p. 39)
1. That hierarchy began with the "most general, simple, abstract and remote phenomena known to us" (math & astronomy) and it increasingly became more complex, concrete, and synthetic -- also "more interesting to man." (at the high end, biology, physiology, and social physics or sociology).
a.) Each science in the hierarchy builds on the sciences that precede it.
2. Sociology and biology are closely connected because they deal with life and are synthetic sciences -- i.e., examine the parts of any phenomena in relation to the whole.
3. Another similarity with biology (and Saint-Simon) is that Comte saw society as an ORGANIC phenomenon, and as with any living, organic thing, "there must be a spontaneous harmony between the whole and the parts of the social system." (pp. 39-40)
C. "Comte advocated that sociology be concerned with the discovery of the most general, most fundamental social laws. Such laws would indicate the ways in which society could be changed. That is, sociology could determine what IS, what WILL BE, and what SHOULD BE, because it discovers what conforms to human nature." (p. 40) And, as the authors observe, this is no modest claim.
1. "The sociologist is spontaneously the prophet of the new order and a scientist employing an objective methodology." (p. 40)
D. They proceed to outline four methods for learning about social phenomena that Comte employed, which are all very general and obviously overlap: Observation, Experiment (which is really mislabeled because what is described is a far-cry from a classical experiment), Comparison, Historical Analysis.
1. Let me just highlight a couple observations here, that really characterize Comte's methodology --
a.) "No social fact can have any scientific meaning (or any meaning, really) till it is connected with some other social fact." (i.e., nothing stands alone; explanation is basically about unraveling the meaning of facts as they relate to the larger reality of which they are a part. (p. 40)
b.) "...that (the) chief quality of sociological science, (is) its proceeding from the whole to the parts." (p. 41) (or, forest to the trees)
E. Underlying this methodology and the whole new science of sociology is (what the text neglects to label) his SOCIAL REALISM -- "...the idea that society has a 'real' existence with properties separate from, and different from, those of the individuals who make it up."
1. Citing a critical theorist by the name of Marcuse, the authors suggest that such a position means that individual human beings are absent from Comte's sociology. (I disagree. It is not that they are absent, but that who they are or what they are is defined in the context of society. Society is the starting point, not the individual.)
_________________________
That brings us up to Comte's "Law of Human Progress" or Law of Societal Evolution, which is where I'll start tomorrow. Be sure to incorporate the above notes in your class notes.
One final comment about "social realism" vs. "nominalism," referred to in the first of those propositions about society, which I commented on yesterday (Tues., 2/22) in class: remember that I drew a parallel with the debate between the Catholic Church (representing the "social realist" point of view -- that the Church is a reality over and above individual followers) and the Protestant Reformation (representing the "nominalist" view -- that the individual believer is the foundation). Proposition #8 from that same handout alludes to this as well. Check it out.
A FEW LECTURE NOTES: In order to get a head start on covering Auguste Comte tomorrow, I am going to post some of my lecture notes on his biography and his notion of the "hierarchy of the sciences."
Auguste Comte (1798-1857)
A. Overall, Comte's biography does not sound like someone credited with founding a whole new scientific discipline, especially when the authors suggest his love life may have inspired his "Religion of Humanity" idea. Whether or not there is any truth to that, I would still maintain that his advocacy of this new religion was logically consistent with his view of the "Law of Human Progress," or Law of Societal Evolution. Where he may have "gone off the rails," so to speak, was in preaching it or regarding himself as the "high priest" of this new religion.
1. In his favor, I would point out that Comte was a very precocious child and his education in all of the sciences was very broad and deep. In fact, he supported himself as a tutor in mathematics. He never had a regular job in academia -- he was on the outside looking in, which may have contributed to his strident tone.
B. Like Saint-Simon, Comte believed that a new science was needed to discover invariable social laws that applied to society. He, of course, dubbed this new science "sociology" and believed it would rightfully take its place at the top of the HIERARCY OF THE SCIENCES. (see, mid. p. 39)
1. That hierarchy began with the "most general, simple, abstract and remote phenomena known to us" (math & astronomy) and it increasingly became more complex, concrete, and synthetic -- also "more interesting to man." (at the high end, biology, physiology, and social physics or sociology).
a.) Each science in the hierarchy builds on the sciences that precede it.
2. Sociology and biology are closely connected because they deal with life and are synthetic sciences -- i.e., examine the parts of any phenomena in relation to the whole.
3. Another similarity with biology (and Saint-Simon) is that Comte saw society as an ORGANIC phenomenon, and as with any living, organic thing, "there must be a spontaneous harmony between the whole and the parts of the social system." (pp. 39-40)
C. "Comte advocated that sociology be concerned with the discovery of the most general, most fundamental social laws. Such laws would indicate the ways in which society could be changed. That is, sociology could determine what IS, what WILL BE, and what SHOULD BE, because it discovers what conforms to human nature." (p. 40) And, as the authors observe, this is no modest claim.
1. "The sociologist is spontaneously the prophet of the new order and a scientist employing an objective methodology." (p. 40)
D. They proceed to outline four methods for learning about social phenomena that Comte employed, which are all very general and obviously overlap: Observation, Experiment (which is really mislabeled because what is described is a far-cry from a classical experiment), Comparison, Historical Analysis.
1. Let me just highlight a couple observations here, that really characterize Comte's methodology --
a.) "No social fact can have any scientific meaning (or any meaning, really) till it is connected with some other social fact." (i.e., nothing stands alone; explanation is basically about unraveling the meaning of facts as they relate to the larger reality of which they are a part. (p. 40)
b.) "...that (the) chief quality of sociological science, (is) its proceeding from the whole to the parts." (p. 41) (or, forest to the trees)
E. Underlying this methodology and the whole new science of sociology is (what the text neglects to label) his SOCIAL REALISM -- "...the idea that society has a 'real' existence with properties separate from, and different from, those of the individuals who make it up."
1. Citing a critical theorist by the name of Marcuse, the authors suggest that such a position means that individual human beings are absent from Comte's sociology. (I disagree. It is not that they are absent, but that who they are or what they are is defined in the context of society. Society is the starting point, not the individual.)
_________________________
That brings us up to Comte's "Law of Human Progress" or Law of Societal Evolution, which is where I'll start tomorrow. Be sure to incorporate the above notes in your class notes.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Making Amends
I left class yesterday in a proverbial "funk," thinking that I did not do a very good job presenting that point about the difference between sociological theory and ideology and also introducing the Enlightenment precursors of sociology. So, I am going to use this blog to make amends and hopefully present this material more clearly and systematically, and also incorporate that passage from "In Defense of Food," which I quoted in class.
A. Sociological theory (like all scientific theory) aspires to be free of ideology. Ideology being defined as -- "...a set of ideas that justifies judgments about good/bad, superior/inferior, better/worse." And a bit later the authors of our text add: "...when applied to individuals or groups, ideology is thought to assert or legitimze the power of some group over another." (p. 5) (eg., racial ideology, political ideology, such as communism, etc.)
(It was at this point that I interjected the example of "nutritionism," which Michael Pollan presents in his book, "In Defense of Food." He says, "The first thing to understand about nutritionism is that it is not the same thing as nutrition. As the "ism" suggests, it is not a scientific subject but an ideology. Ideologies are ways of organizing large swaths of life and experience under a set of shared but unexamined assumptions." (p. 28) I like the way he describes an ideology here. And what I tried to go on to do (but perhaps failed) was illustrate the basic unexamined assumption of nutritionism, which is that a food is merely the sum of its nutrients. From this flows countless processed food items composed of various nutrients which cannot be assumed to be equivalent to the whole foods from which these nutrients are derived. I guess you'd have to read the book to get the full flavor (pun intended) of Pollan's argument, but I thought it does shed some light on the term ideology.)
1. An ideology is NOT a theory, even though it may offer some sort of explanation of things. Nonetheless, these terms are often intertwined (eg. Marxist ideology & theory).
2. Sociologists (as social SCIENTISTS) aspire to be OBJECTIVE, DISPASSIONATE, yet they are interested, and perhaps should be, in social reform or efforts to improve society. (Let me add here, that in the end, value questions, I would insist, as does Prof. Ahrens in "Order and Disorder in Society," cannot be ignored. Indeed, a sound knowledge of the world is the only real basis or ground for value or moral judgment.)
a.) Max Weber referred to this aspiration to complete objectivity as an "impossible obligation," but one sociologists must take on. The problem stems from the fact that we are both "subject" and "object" -- easier for a scientist to be objective when analyzing chemical reactions in a test tube; we, however, live in our test tube, have certain values, ethnic, religious affiliations, etc.., which complicates our ability to study society dispassionately.
Then, skipping over my presentation of those three Researach Traditions, let me pick up with the next section in the text: "THE PHILOSOPHICAL PRECURSORS OF SOCIOLOGY"
A. Many important developments in philosophy laid the groundwork for the emergence of sociology in the early 19th century with Auguste Comte, the thinker who coined the term "sociology." Various intellectuals promoted the positivist idea that the social world could be understood in the same terms as the physical world of nature because of the human capacity to reason.
1. Where sociology differs from many of these philosophers is in recognizing society as a distinct entity, created by humans, subject to change.
B. As our modern world (basically dating from the very beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century) was being born in the wake of the Renaissance, the medieval, feudal world based on tradition and religion was being aggressively challenged. Rather than the Church and God being the center of things, Society and People, and Science were taking over.
1. In bold print (bottom, p. 9), the authors define or label the various attitudes (or political positions) toward these changes. (as noted, these terms will pop up again and again in the history of sociological theory.)
2. Thinkers, artists, scientists such as Leonardo da Vinci (who was all three), Galileo, Descartes, and many more challenged the religious world view.
3. What is known as the "Enlightenment" represents the culmination of this secular philosophy, and this period (basically the 18th century) is witness to significant social, political and economic change, all of which forms the backdrop for the emergence of sociology.
THE PHILOSOPHES AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT
A. The authors note the overwhelming interest of Enlightenment thinkers in the attainment of human snd social perfectibility in the here and now, not in some other-worldly heaven. And this goal could be attained through the acquisition of knowledge and the use of reason.
1. They placed great emphasis on practical knowledge -- how to farm, build bridges, but also how to run the affairs of state. Cites Diderot's famous "Encyclopedie" in this context.
B. You can see how this all plays into political revolution -- individuals using reason, rather than the traditional monarchy, should be the basis of government. Thomas Jefferson's preamble to the "Declaration of Independence" is a prime example of this Enlightenment political thought -- self-evident truths, all men created equal, have the right to reject unjust authority.
C. This thinking had the most far-reaching implications in France, inspiring the French Revolution, which, unfortunately, was followed by a bloody aftermath and restoration of the monarchy.
D. The authors, then, proceed to discuss some of the important thinkers of this Enlightenment period, many of whom inspired the political revolutions in both America and France. They helped usher in this new age: transform SUBJECTS, living under custom and tradition, monarchy into CITIZENS, based on individual freedom and rationality.
That brings us up to Thomas Hobbes, where I will pick up tomorrow. Please incorporate the above lecture notes/clarifications in your notes.
Let me also remind most of you that you still need to post your comment on the "forest and trees" problem, which is described in the previous blog post. See you all tomorrow.
A. Sociological theory (like all scientific theory) aspires to be free of ideology. Ideology being defined as -- "...a set of ideas that justifies judgments about good/bad, superior/inferior, better/worse." And a bit later the authors of our text add: "...when applied to individuals or groups, ideology is thought to assert or legitimze the power of some group over another." (p. 5) (eg., racial ideology, political ideology, such as communism, etc.)
(It was at this point that I interjected the example of "nutritionism," which Michael Pollan presents in his book, "In Defense of Food." He says, "The first thing to understand about nutritionism is that it is not the same thing as nutrition. As the "ism" suggests, it is not a scientific subject but an ideology. Ideologies are ways of organizing large swaths of life and experience under a set of shared but unexamined assumptions." (p. 28) I like the way he describes an ideology here. And what I tried to go on to do (but perhaps failed) was illustrate the basic unexamined assumption of nutritionism, which is that a food is merely the sum of its nutrients. From this flows countless processed food items composed of various nutrients which cannot be assumed to be equivalent to the whole foods from which these nutrients are derived. I guess you'd have to read the book to get the full flavor (pun intended) of Pollan's argument, but I thought it does shed some light on the term ideology.)
1. An ideology is NOT a theory, even though it may offer some sort of explanation of things. Nonetheless, these terms are often intertwined (eg. Marxist ideology & theory).
2. Sociologists (as social SCIENTISTS) aspire to be OBJECTIVE, DISPASSIONATE, yet they are interested, and perhaps should be, in social reform or efforts to improve society. (Let me add here, that in the end, value questions, I would insist, as does Prof. Ahrens in "Order and Disorder in Society," cannot be ignored. Indeed, a sound knowledge of the world is the only real basis or ground for value or moral judgment.)
a.) Max Weber referred to this aspiration to complete objectivity as an "impossible obligation," but one sociologists must take on. The problem stems from the fact that we are both "subject" and "object" -- easier for a scientist to be objective when analyzing chemical reactions in a test tube; we, however, live in our test tube, have certain values, ethnic, religious affiliations, etc.., which complicates our ability to study society dispassionately.
Then, skipping over my presentation of those three Researach Traditions, let me pick up with the next section in the text: "THE PHILOSOPHICAL PRECURSORS OF SOCIOLOGY"
A. Many important developments in philosophy laid the groundwork for the emergence of sociology in the early 19th century with Auguste Comte, the thinker who coined the term "sociology." Various intellectuals promoted the positivist idea that the social world could be understood in the same terms as the physical world of nature because of the human capacity to reason.
1. Where sociology differs from many of these philosophers is in recognizing society as a distinct entity, created by humans, subject to change.
B. As our modern world (basically dating from the very beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century) was being born in the wake of the Renaissance, the medieval, feudal world based on tradition and religion was being aggressively challenged. Rather than the Church and God being the center of things, Society and People, and Science were taking over.
1. In bold print (bottom, p. 9), the authors define or label the various attitudes (or political positions) toward these changes. (as noted, these terms will pop up again and again in the history of sociological theory.)
2. Thinkers, artists, scientists such as Leonardo da Vinci (who was all three), Galileo, Descartes, and many more challenged the religious world view.
3. What is known as the "Enlightenment" represents the culmination of this secular philosophy, and this period (basically the 18th century) is witness to significant social, political and economic change, all of which forms the backdrop for the emergence of sociology.
THE PHILOSOPHES AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT
A. The authors note the overwhelming interest of Enlightenment thinkers in the attainment of human snd social perfectibility in the here and now, not in some other-worldly heaven. And this goal could be attained through the acquisition of knowledge and the use of reason.
1. They placed great emphasis on practical knowledge -- how to farm, build bridges, but also how to run the affairs of state. Cites Diderot's famous "Encyclopedie" in this context.
B. You can see how this all plays into political revolution -- individuals using reason, rather than the traditional monarchy, should be the basis of government. Thomas Jefferson's preamble to the "Declaration of Independence" is a prime example of this Enlightenment political thought -- self-evident truths, all men created equal, have the right to reject unjust authority.
C. This thinking had the most far-reaching implications in France, inspiring the French Revolution, which, unfortunately, was followed by a bloody aftermath and restoration of the monarchy.
D. The authors, then, proceed to discuss some of the important thinkers of this Enlightenment period, many of whom inspired the political revolutions in both America and France. They helped usher in this new age: transform SUBJECTS, living under custom and tradition, monarchy into CITIZENS, based on individual freedom and rationality.
That brings us up to Thomas Hobbes, where I will pick up tomorrow. Please incorporate the above lecture notes/clarifications in your notes.
Let me also remind most of you that you still need to post your comment on the "forest and trees" problem, which is described in the previous blog post. See you all tomorrow.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Welcome and First Individual Exercise
WELCOME to this blog that I have set up for Sociology 340: The Development of Sociological Theory. As I noted in class, we will be using this blog for a variety of individual and group activities and exercises. When I post some material on this blog I will let you know about it in class, but it would be a good idea to check it out a couple times a week regardless. Sometimes I may just post some follow-up comments after a class, or I may post something over the long weekend (Thurs-Tues.). In any case, know that this blog is an extension of what we do in this class and an important part of this course in social theory.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE:
In the Preface of our text (which I assigned yesterday, Tues. 2/8), the authors refer to what they call the "forest and trees problem" (p. xxiv), which I believe should really be worded: "missing the forest for the trees." For this exercise I want you to post an example of this problem (an example which can be invented if you can't think of one you may have run across in another course or other reading or even real life) OTHER THAN the one discussed by the authors in the Preface. I also want you to address the question of why this is a "problem." I am looking for NO MORE THAN 1 OR 2 PARAGRAPHS (no dissertations). Post your response as a comment on this blog post. Please do so by FRIDAY, FEB. 18TH. This exercise is worth 5 points.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE:
In the Preface of our text (which I assigned yesterday, Tues. 2/8), the authors refer to what they call the "forest and trees problem" (p. xxiv), which I believe should really be worded: "missing the forest for the trees." For this exercise I want you to post an example of this problem (an example which can be invented if you can't think of one you may have run across in another course or other reading or even real life) OTHER THAN the one discussed by the authors in the Preface. I also want you to address the question of why this is a "problem." I am looking for NO MORE THAN 1 OR 2 PARAGRAPHS (no dissertations). Post your response as a comment on this blog post. Please do so by FRIDAY, FEB. 18TH. This exercise is worth 5 points.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)