For this family exercise I want each of the families (which I put on the board yesterday and also list at the bottom of this post) to come up with FIVE short-answer questions from anything we've covered in class and the text since the beginning of the term (xerox handouts included). Think of this as if you were teaching this class and had covered this material -- what would you consider important points to ask about. Use your class notes as a guide. Remember, by short-answer I do NOT mean true-false or multiple choice, although fill-in-the-blank is ok. I will give the families some time to confer on this next week, both Tuesday (3/16) and Thursday (3/18). I, then, want a family member to submit your five questions and answers NO LATER THAN NOON ON FRIDAY, MARCH 19TH. You may simply submit them to me via email or drop off a hard copy. I will then sort through these and try to select at least THREE questions from each family. For each additional question I accept, that family will earn a bonus point, so you may earn up to two bonus points for this exercise. I will then post the questions and answers I accepted on this blog by MONDAY, MARCH 22, so you will have them in plenty of time to study for the midterm on Thursday, March 25th. This exercise is worth 7 points, which all PARTICIPATING family members will earn, plus whatever bonus points.
FAMILIES:
Red Family: John R., Frances C., Sami N., Natalie D.
Green Family: Emily J., Kelsey L., Tomas M., Cameron R.
Blue Family: Jenny A., Jeremy M., Alan D., Melanie R., Marshall H.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Out-of-Class Essay on Tuesday 3/2
This is just a reminder, mainly for those who were absent, that I will be handing out a write-up of our first OUT-OF-CLASS ESSAY at the beginning of class on Tuesday, March 2nd. I had originally planned to do this in-class, but I decided not to because I knew a couple people would have to leave class early. Nonetheless, it is probably better that we do it this way, because I am a bit behind in terms of class lectures. On Tuesday I will quickly wrap up Chapter 2 and plan to get through ALL of Chapter 3, so you should be that far in your reading in the text. As a hint, the topic will have to do with the two major (contrasting) views of societal evolution that are brought out in these two chapters. Finally, after I hand the topic out on Tuesday, you will have until CLASS TIME ON THURSDAY (MAR. 4TH) TO COMPLETE IT, so you should get right on it after I hand it out. It will be OPEN-NOTEBOOK, OPEN-BOOK, of course and it is worth 25 points.
See you next Tuesday.
See you next Tuesday.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Follow-Up to "What Good (or Use) is Sociological Theory Anyway?"
It is presently 12:15PM, Wed. Feb., 17th, and Natalie and John have yet to submit your comments for this exercise. The deadline was this past Monday. Please do so ASAP. 5 points are at stake.
Regarding those who have submitted your comments, I'd like to follow-up on the blog with some general comments of my own. Let me stress that none of the points I am going to make are intended as real criticisms of anyone's comments. I was not asking for much with this exercise, just a reflection on the relevance of some theories or theorists you have already encountered. But I will say a couple submissions were weak and really did not address the question of relevance very well or at all in one case.
In general, what did these various theorists and their interpretations of social reality help us to do? Basically, better understand how individuals and/or societies behave or function, and knowing this may help us adapt better to certain social situations. Several focused on this social psychological dimension (eg., Goffman, Festinger, Mead, Sapir/Whorf being a bit broader). Some others cited theorists' ideas that offered some critical perspective on society or an aspect of society (eg., Weber, Marx, Freud, Becker, King).
But whether your observations were more social psychological or sociological (focusing on the larger society or some aspect of it), one can say that these theories, ideas, concepts helped you interpret and understand some aspect of social reality. Of course, we could pursue this further by raising questions about the validity of these ideas, about how narrowly or broadly applicable they may be. Our goal, of course, is trying to understand society and social life in all of its complexity, which, ultimately, is the only basis for improving the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole.
PLEASE INCORPORATE THESE BRIEF COMMENTS IN YOUR CLASS NOTES. I BELIEVE THEY ARE PERTINENT TO WHAT I TALKED ABOUT IN MY FIRST CLASS LECTURE.
Regarding those who have submitted your comments, I'd like to follow-up on the blog with some general comments of my own. Let me stress that none of the points I am going to make are intended as real criticisms of anyone's comments. I was not asking for much with this exercise, just a reflection on the relevance of some theories or theorists you have already encountered. But I will say a couple submissions were weak and really did not address the question of relevance very well or at all in one case.
In general, what did these various theorists and their interpretations of social reality help us to do? Basically, better understand how individuals and/or societies behave or function, and knowing this may help us adapt better to certain social situations. Several focused on this social psychological dimension (eg., Goffman, Festinger, Mead, Sapir/Whorf being a bit broader). Some others cited theorists' ideas that offered some critical perspective on society or an aspect of society (eg., Weber, Marx, Freud, Becker, King).
But whether your observations were more social psychological or sociological (focusing on the larger society or some aspect of it), one can say that these theories, ideas, concepts helped you interpret and understand some aspect of social reality. Of course, we could pursue this further by raising questions about the validity of these ideas, about how narrowly or broadly applicable they may be. Our goal, of course, is trying to understand society and social life in all of its complexity, which, ultimately, is the only basis for improving the quality of life for individuals and society as a whole.
PLEASE INCORPORATE THESE BRIEF COMMENTS IN YOUR CLASS NOTES. I BELIEVE THEY ARE PERTINENT TO WHAT I TALKED ABOUT IN MY FIRST CLASS LECTURE.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
First Exercise: What Good (or Use) is Sociological Theory Anyway?
Without doing any research or reading in our text, I want you to identify a sociologist that you have read or heard about in any sociology course you have taken and briefly describe an idea or concept he or she developed that you believe has some merit or usefulness. Describe briefly in what way exactly you believe this idea or concept is useful.
I am looking for two paragraphs at most (no dissertations). Post them as a comment on this blog post. This activity is worth 5 activity points, which you will earn for any reasonable submission. Please do so by next Monday, Feb. 15th, so I can have the opportunity to review them and possibly use some in class next week.
I am looking for two paragraphs at most (no dissertations). Post them as a comment on this blog post. This activity is worth 5 activity points, which you will earn for any reasonable submission. Please do so by next Monday, Feb. 15th, so I can have the opportunity to review them and possibly use some in class next week.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Welcome to SOC. 340 Blog: Spring 2010
Welcome to the place in the "blogosphere" set up for this course, Sociology 340: The Development of Sociological Theory." We will be using this space over the course of the semester for what I call "individual and group activities and exercises," and for occasional posting of lecture notes and reminders. As I note in the syllabus, I would suggest that you check this site out at least once a week. I will usually give you notice in class if I will be posting anything on this blog or if there is an activity I'd like you to do. Often, if I feel that I did not do a terribly good job presenting something in class, I may use this blog space to make amends and try to clarify or elaborate on some remarks I made in class. You will need to check this blog prior to the midterm and final exams for some questions (and answers) that will appear on each of those tests. Finally, I hope you will feel free to use this space to post any questions or comments you may not feel comfortable verbalizing in class.
BY THE END OF THIS FIRST WEEK I WILL BE POSTING A "GET-YOUR-FEET-WET" INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO GET YOU ACCUSTOMED TO USING THIS BLOG. BE LOOKING FOR IT.
BY THE END OF THIS FIRST WEEK I WILL BE POSTING A "GET-YOUR-FEET-WET" INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO GET YOU ACCUSTOMED TO USING THIS BLOG. BE LOOKING FOR IT.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Family Final Exam Questions
The following are the questions I accepted from the families. Remember, these will be on the final exam. Each participating member earns three points for this activity, and the members of the GREEN FAMILY will each earn two bonus points.
BLUE FAMILY (Jessica H., Amanda, Grant, Natalie)
1. In what TWO respects did Weber have a different view of social change than Marx, Comte, and Durkheim? (2)
ANSWER: (a) Weber did not have any linear conception of social evolution or commitment to ideas of beneficial progress. (b) Weber was pessimistic about the dehumanization of modern rationalized, bureaucratized life.
2. In the context of the critical theorists discussed in Chapter 16, such as Max Horkheimer who you read about, what did they regard as "emancipatory theory" (which is also similar to Horkheimer's idea of objective reason)? (2)
ANSWER: not simply a way to make sense of the facts, but helping people to see and understand what IS so that they can see what MIGHT BE.
YELLOW FAMILY: (Megan, Matt, Claire)
1. Regarding Weber's view of race, I applauded his clear recognition that race is a ________________________ distinction NOT a _________________________ distinction. (2)
ANSWER: a SOCIAL not a BIOLOGICAL distinction
2. Although Weber predicted the development of an "iron cage" of bureaucracy or rationality in western capitalist societies, in what other type of society did he see bureaucracy becoming even more entrenched? (1)
ANSWER: socialist
GREEN FAMILY (Jessica G., Justina, Kristin, Lewis, Courtney) 2 bonus points
1. In "Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge," what did the author claim Freud saw as important for both a healthy psyche and a healthy body politic? (1)
ANSWER: a good deal of continuing tension
2. What was the "double-consciousness" DuBois spoke of? (2)
ANSWER: Being an American and Black: "two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideas in one dark body."
3. What did Weber mean by "rationalization?" (2)
ANSWER: "the process of making life more efficient and predictable by wringing out individuality and spontaneity in life."
4. Name any TWO of the three important things that Talcott Parsons accomplished in his first book, "The Structure of Social Action." (2)
ANSWER: Any two of the following: (1) introduced an Amercian audience to the work of some great European sociologists: Durkheim, Weber, Pareto; (2) took seriously the idea of society as a system or SOCIAL REALISM; (3) his theory of social action integrated fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
_____________________________
That's it. Remember, the exam is on TUESDAY, MAY 12 from 9-12. See you there.
BLUE FAMILY (Jessica H., Amanda, Grant, Natalie)
1. In what TWO respects did Weber have a different view of social change than Marx, Comte, and Durkheim? (2)
ANSWER: (a) Weber did not have any linear conception of social evolution or commitment to ideas of beneficial progress. (b) Weber was pessimistic about the dehumanization of modern rationalized, bureaucratized life.
2. In the context of the critical theorists discussed in Chapter 16, such as Max Horkheimer who you read about, what did they regard as "emancipatory theory" (which is also similar to Horkheimer's idea of objective reason)? (2)
ANSWER: not simply a way to make sense of the facts, but helping people to see and understand what IS so that they can see what MIGHT BE.
YELLOW FAMILY: (Megan, Matt, Claire)
1. Regarding Weber's view of race, I applauded his clear recognition that race is a ________________________ distinction NOT a _________________________ distinction. (2)
ANSWER: a SOCIAL not a BIOLOGICAL distinction
2. Although Weber predicted the development of an "iron cage" of bureaucracy or rationality in western capitalist societies, in what other type of society did he see bureaucracy becoming even more entrenched? (1)
ANSWER: socialist
GREEN FAMILY (Jessica G., Justina, Kristin, Lewis, Courtney) 2 bonus points
1. In "Freud and the Fundamentalist Urge," what did the author claim Freud saw as important for both a healthy psyche and a healthy body politic? (1)
ANSWER: a good deal of continuing tension
2. What was the "double-consciousness" DuBois spoke of? (2)
ANSWER: Being an American and Black: "two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideas in one dark body."
3. What did Weber mean by "rationalization?" (2)
ANSWER: "the process of making life more efficient and predictable by wringing out individuality and spontaneity in life."
4. Name any TWO of the three important things that Talcott Parsons accomplished in his first book, "The Structure of Social Action." (2)
ANSWER: Any two of the following: (1) introduced an Amercian audience to the work of some great European sociologists: Durkheim, Weber, Pareto; (2) took seriously the idea of society as a system or SOCIAL REALISM; (3) his theory of social action integrated fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
_____________________________
That's it. Remember, the exam is on TUESDAY, MAY 12 from 9-12. See you there.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Reminders & More Lecture Notes
I forgot to allow time for the families to confer last Thursday 4/30 about making up final exam questions, partly because attendance was so poor. But I will make sure to give the families time this coming Tuesday 5/5. In the meantime you should be giving some thought to this and making up questions on your own so the families can decide which questions to submit on Tuesday. Remember, the deadline for submitting these questions (and answers) is WEDNESDAY, 5/6.
Also, don't forget that your final short essay, involving Ahrens and Chapter 19 in the text is due on Tuesday, May 5th. As I noted in my write-up of this assignment, I will not be very forgiving of late papers.
MORE LECTURE NOTES: we left off on Thursday in Chapter 19, where I had gotten into the Fact-Value Debate.
After noting that the authors do a pretty good job on this debate, although they rely on some of the weaker critics (in my opinion) -- Friedrichs and Gouldner, then...
1. They begin with Howard Becker's presidential address to the 1960 ASA convention, which sort of laid down the gauntlet to those who were questioning sociology as a value-free, empirical science (such as C. Wright Mills). As quoted, Becker says, "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480, bottom) -- this reflected the position of professional, institutionalized sociology.
2. The authors go on to mention some of the prominent American critics -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to value-free orthodoxy is captured in a reference to Alvin Gouldner. See short paragraph, mid. p. 482. Note the assumption that values and passion are considered synonymous, as are reason and facts.
b.) Of course, the value-free stance did not sit too well with many students (and professors) who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, to taking a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx, as the authors comment: "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (a distinction I don't really agree with, but I believe they mean: not the later, more scientific Marx but the early humanist Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view of this issue was Alfred McClung Lee. He later expanded his presidential address into a book, "Sociology for Whom?". He also founded the Society for Humanist Sociology. See middle two paragraphs, p. 486.
3. Even though this debate has yet to be resolved, the authors suggest it opened the door to a variety of new approaches.
C. The authors put the next debate (Macro/Micro Perspectives) in the context of Thomas Kuhn's, "The STructure of Scientific Revolutions," and his analysis of "paradigm change." Clearly, the fact/value debate falls under the same heading, as the authors point out, and they also describe in fairly simple terms the macro/micro debate. See bottom p. 488 - 489.
1. Although the authors see this macro/micro dichotomy as a "misguided division of the sociological endeavor" (as I also do), it has tended to divide sociologists -- even lead to competition for legitimacy and students (and their fees)-- the latter being truly pathetic in my opinion.
D. This sets the stage for the last two sections of this chapter -- recent theoretical work which attempts to bridge these divides. In particular, feminist sociological theory and theories of race and colonialism. (But, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perspectives bridging any divide. At best, they just articulate new points of view that had been missing.)
So, I am going to conclude my remarks on Chapter 19 here, which will set the stage for talking about the Ahrens material on Tuesday. See you then.
Also, don't forget that your final short essay, involving Ahrens and Chapter 19 in the text is due on Tuesday, May 5th. As I noted in my write-up of this assignment, I will not be very forgiving of late papers.
MORE LECTURE NOTES: we left off on Thursday in Chapter 19, where I had gotten into the Fact-Value Debate.
After noting that the authors do a pretty good job on this debate, although they rely on some of the weaker critics (in my opinion) -- Friedrichs and Gouldner, then...
1. They begin with Howard Becker's presidential address to the 1960 ASA convention, which sort of laid down the gauntlet to those who were questioning sociology as a value-free, empirical science (such as C. Wright Mills). As quoted, Becker says, "There is no substitute for remaining in close touch with the empirical evidence, with the 'damned facts.'" (p. 480, bottom) -- this reflected the position of professional, institutionalized sociology.
2. The authors go on to mention some of the prominent American critics -- Alfred McClung Lee, Robert Lynd, C. Wright Mills, Alvin Gouldner.
a.) The nature of the challenge to value-free orthodoxy is captured in a reference to Alvin Gouldner. See short paragraph, mid. p. 482. Note the assumption that values and passion are considered synonymous, as are reason and facts.
b.) Of course, the value-free stance did not sit too well with many students (and professors) who were getting involved in various protests. They obviously felt sociology should be relevant to these issues, to taking a stance on them.
c.) Lurking in the background of all this is Karl Marx, as the authors comment: "The Marx who was relevant was not, however, the Marx of class conflict but the Marx of alienation." (a distinction I don't really agree with, but I believe they mean: not the later, more scientific Marx but the early humanist Marx.)
d.) The first ASA president to embrace the dissenters' view of this issue was Alfred McClung Lee. He later expanded his presidential address into a book, "Sociology for Whom?". He also founded the Society for Humanist Sociology. See middle two paragraphs, p. 486.
3. Even though this debate has yet to be resolved, the authors suggest it opened the door to a variety of new approaches.
C. The authors put the next debate (Macro/Micro Perspectives) in the context of Thomas Kuhn's, "The STructure of Scientific Revolutions," and his analysis of "paradigm change." Clearly, the fact/value debate falls under the same heading, as the authors point out, and they also describe in fairly simple terms the macro/micro debate. See bottom p. 488 - 489.
1. Although the authors see this macro/micro dichotomy as a "misguided division of the sociological endeavor" (as I also do), it has tended to divide sociologists -- even lead to competition for legitimacy and students (and their fees)-- the latter being truly pathetic in my opinion.
D. This sets the stage for the last two sections of this chapter -- recent theoretical work which attempts to bridge these divides. In particular, feminist sociological theory and theories of race and colonialism. (But, unless I missed something, I did not see much evidence of these new perspectives bridging any divide. At best, they just articulate new points of view that had been missing.)
So, I am going to conclude my remarks on Chapter 19 here, which will set the stage for talking about the Ahrens material on Tuesday. See you then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)