Welcome to the blog that I have set up for this class. I will be using this blog for a variety of individual and group activities and exercises throughout the semester, such as the "get your feet wet" exercise described below. This blog will also be used to post questions (and answers) that you will make up in preparation for the midterm and final exams. Finally, I may use this space for possible extra credit opportunities. Although I will be sure to remind you in class when you need to be checking this blog, let me also recommend that you get in the habit of checking it at least once or twice a week on your own.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: Identify and briefly describe what you consider a significant idea or concept that you have encountered in any of the various sociology courses you have taken. Be sure to indicate which sociologist was responsible for this idea or concept and in what sense you believe it is significant or relevant. I am only looking for a couple paragraphs. This exercise is worth 5 activity points. Please post your comment by MONDAY, FEB. 13TH.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Family Questions for Final Exam
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.
_______________________________
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.
_______________________________
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)