Imperialism, Colonialism, and War
A. DuBois shared Lenin's belief that IMPERIALISM basically represented the global reach of capitalist exploitation, focusing on how various European powers had carved up and where exploiting Africa for its raw materials and cheap labor.
1. Imperialism and colonialism sort of go hand-in-hand. And in Africa this gets rationalized by appealing to race theory -- notions of the racial inferiority of Blacks. See bottom paragraph, p. 295.
2. This is also linked to war -- "central to imperialist capitalism is war." (p. 296). He recognizes Veblen's point on sabotage and destruction of resources. And the cause of war (especially WW I)? See middle paragraph p. 296.
3. Nonehteless, he did not believe colonialism was here to stay. He predicted the emergence of independence movements in Africa and elsewhere as the major powers exhausted themselves in war.
Social Organization and Culture
A. "DuBois argued that the basic element in social organization is oppression,..." Referred to this as the MANURE theory of social organization. "By this, he meant the dregs of humanity are considered fit only to do tasks that no human being ought to have to do." Which leads into his "Theory of Exclusiveness" -- "...a feeling that the world progresses by a process of excluding from the benefits of culture the majority of men, so that a gifted minority may blossom." (blossom from the manure, that is) (p. 297)
B. Nonetheless, he certainly believed darker peoples had contributed to civilization development -- it is just that these contributions had been obscured by the ideology of white supremacy. (eg., regarding Egyptian civilization as a prime example of black African contributions, which I would add is a controversial claim even today.)
Leadership and Power
A. Nothing significant here, although when he talks about leaders mirroring the values and attributes most prized by their society, note the values and attributes he identifies as American -- "wealth, show, impudence." -- not very flattering and again sounding like Veblen.
B. "DOUBLE-CONSCIOUSNESS" -- this is a key concept for DuBois, which has resonated throughout African American history. As he describes it -- see bottom p. 298 - 299.
NATURE OF SOCIETY, HUMANS, AND CHANGE
A. Notes that DuBois exposed HISTORY AS IDEOLOGY -- how historians had unanimously argued that Blacks were responsible for the failure of Reconstruction and their subsequent inferior status. But DuBois strongly challenged this mainstream view in his book, "Black Reconstruction in America," which documents the many positive things that were accomplished during Reconstruction due black legislators, among others. (But the text does not go into any of the detail DuBois does in his book.)
B. DuBois did not believe that human nature was inherently good or bad, but malleable. Similarly, he did not see racial prejudice as ineradicable.
1. Makes an interesting point about this as regards the newly freed slaves. See first paragraph, p. 300.
2. However, he did not see progress (on the racial front or otherwise) as inevitable. Note what the authors say about DuBois's optimism -- see last paragraph, p. 300.
CLASS, GENDER, AND RACE
A. DuBois clearly saw class and race as intertwined. He makes an interesting point how class seems to trump race when you're talking about the black middle class. Nonetheless, he felt (like himself) that the black middle class had an obligation to try to uplift the masses of Black poor. See last two paragraphs, p. 301.
B. He "...argued that no scientific definition of race is possible. Physical differences fade into each other almost imperceptibly." (p. 302) Talks about the "race construct" -- which I believe is what is meant today by the concept of the "social construction of race."
1. In this context, DuBois contended that racial discrimination preceeded prejudice and could reinforce it.
C. DuBois recognized the uplift of women as the next great movement (after racial uplift, that is). And he spoke forcefully on issues of women's suffrage and education for women. Other progressive points noted.
OTHER THEORIES AND THEORISTS
A. The authors make an intersting point with respect to DuBois's take on William Graham Sumner's Social Darwinist perspective. See middle paragraph, p. 304.
B. And in commenting on DuBois's drift toward Marxism, they quote from a letter Marx wrote to Abraham Lincoln in 1865. See bottom, p. 304 (a passage which suggests Marx was right on the money with this prediction, even if he was way off on some others.)
CRITIQUE AND CONCLUSIONS & FINAL THOUGHTS
A. The authors acknowledge his potential to have been a great national leader, if he had been white (as Gunnar Myrdal observed). DuBois's politics, especially his sympathy for communism, also marginalized him.
B. And he clearly was a committed scholar. DuBois clearly belongs in the research tradition of CRITICAL THEORY.
__________________________________
That brings us up to Chapter 13. I'll probably be blogging those notes over this weekend, and certainly before next Tuesday's (4/26) class.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Lecture Notes
Since I failed to finish commenting on Max Weber in class yesterday (Tues. 4/12), I am going to do so on the blog, as well as post my lecture notes on Chapter 8, Georg Simmel. Remember, that I extended the deadline for the families to formulate a response to those articles on Weber's predictions about the future until next Tues., 4/19. But remember that essay II is due tomorrow.
________________
H. In connection with "ideal types," the authors briefly introduce an important aspect of Weber's work, which is his defense of the "DOCTRINE OF VALUE NEUTRALITY." It should be noted in this regard that "ideal types" are NOT ethical prescriptions, and so do not violate his argument that sociologists should be value neutral.
1. As the authors note at the bottom of p. 176: "Weber was particularly opposed to sociologists using their work to advance their own personal beliefs and values: the 'prophet and the demagogoue do not belong on the academic platform.' The 'elementary duty of scientific self-control' demanded a 'sharp distinction between the logically comparative analysis of reality by ideal-types in the logical sense and the value-judgment of reality on the basis of ideals.'"
2. This has essentially been the position on this issue that has been embraced by mainstream sociology. However, there was some challenge to this in the 1960s and 70s, and what emerged was a compromise position -- what I would call the "LET'S BE HONEST" position, which suggests that sociologists be honest about what biases they may have and by openly admitting them thereby allow people to take that into account in reading and evaluating their work. (which, I believe, is where the authors of this text stand, as reflected in their early discussion of the difference between IDEOLOGY and SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY.
I. On the issues of gender and race, it appears Weber was more enlightened than many of his colleagues.
1. Regarding gender, and probably because of the influence of his wife who was a feminist, he did embrace a more egalitarian view of the marriage relationship. He viewed women "primarily as human beings and only secondarily as members of the opposite sex." (p. 189) Nonetheless, he did not get away entirely from a "naturalistic" view of woman as primarily a sexual object, and he personally strayed from his monogamous relationship.
2. On race, I applaud his clear recognition of race as a SOCIAL, not a biological distinction ( a view that was not widely accepted at that time). See p. 188. And he makes a very telling point about race relations in the U.S. -- why race prejudice was deeper among poor whites. See bottom, p. 188.
Chapter 8: The Sociology of Form and Content: Simmel
A. A good way to introduce my brief exploration of the work of Georg Simmel would be to quote the very last sentence in the chapter -- "More than anything else,...Simmel was a philosophical sociologist concerned with how human beings can define their humanity in the context of an overwhelmingly objective culture." (p. 220)
B. Like Weber, Simmel acknowledged the growing industrialization, bureaucratization, rationalization of modern society (objective culture) especially in the modern metropolis, and how individuals experience or confront this.
1. He recognized that in many ways these developments represented progress, yet they also contributed to alienation and anomie. Or, to put this in somewhat different terms: to what extent has the scale of modern life overwhelmed and dominated individuals, and how can and should individuals respond to this?
C. Biographically, the authors highlight Simmel's struggles to secure an academic position, a major obstacle being the prevailing anti-Semitism, and the association of sociology with socialism, and in turn, socialism with Jewish intellectuals.
1. But there can be no doubt that Simmel lived in the midst of a vibrant intellectual community, and he himself would have a significant impact on several prominent, later sociologists such as Karl Mannheim, George Herbert Mead, and the Chicago School in general. His essay, "Metropolis and Mental Life" was itself highly influential in the development of urban sociology at the University of Chicago.
D. "Simmel regarded sociology as the study of social interaction." Although Simmel acknowledged that an entity called "society" did exist which confronts the individual, yet "...it was an entity whose 'reality' lay in the minds and actions of individual human beings." (p. 202)
1. Although I would not necessarily endorse the use of "dialectical" here, the authors go on to describe the relation of the individual to society in these terms. See mid., p. 203. (And I would question whether these "most private, internal impulses" are really independent of the larger social order.)
2. And on the very next page (p. 204 mid.), the authors underscore that for Simmel we all have a part of the self that is "outside" society, although this non-social element varies from person to person. (again, I wonder about that.)
E. Simmel also made some interesting observations about CONFLICT, especially the peculiar nature of conflict in Western societies, which is especially evident in modern metropolitan life. The following passage also captures well the phenomenon of the growing RATIONALIZATION and impersonality of modern life. See 2nd paragraph, p. 206.
F. Along these same lines, Simmel made some interesting and relevant points about modern society in his book, "The Philosophy of Money" (1900), which explored the way in which social relations are transformed by the modern money economy.
1. On the face of it, this sounds like Marx and his "historical materialism." But Simmel characterized his effort as getting "beneath" historical materialism to the more basic level of EXCHANGE as a form of social interaction among individuals.
2. Although he recognized ways in which exchange based on money might benefit society (p. 208), on balance, he saw its impact as negative (in terms not all that different from Marx). See top half of p. 209.
G. The so-called money economy becomes an important part of what Simmel calls OBECTIVE CULTURE, which comes to dominate individuals and closes off possibilities of individual expression and creativity. See 3rd & 4th paragraphs, p. 210, which brings out some of the adverse consequences of the domination of a money economy and objective culture.
1. Although such alienation seems most closely connected with capitalism, Simmel (like Weber) recognized the alienating potential of socialism and communism, which represent other forms of the domination of the individual by objective culture.
H. Simmel's views on gender appear to put him in the category of so many other theorists, endorsing a version of "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" thesis -- that women are more "closely and deeply rooted in the dark, primitive forces of nature than are men." (p. 215) See also the very bottom of p. 215.
I. Finally, I believe the authors do a nice job of bringing together some of these broad themes in Simmel's work -- See top half of p. 219.
______________________________________
That brings us up to Section V & Chapter 9, which is where I will pick up tomorrow (Thurs., 4/14). Be sure to incorporate the above notes in your class notes, and pay special attention to the cited passages, especially to understand Simmel.
________________
H. In connection with "ideal types," the authors briefly introduce an important aspect of Weber's work, which is his defense of the "DOCTRINE OF VALUE NEUTRALITY." It should be noted in this regard that "ideal types" are NOT ethical prescriptions, and so do not violate his argument that sociologists should be value neutral.
1. As the authors note at the bottom of p. 176: "Weber was particularly opposed to sociologists using their work to advance their own personal beliefs and values: the 'prophet and the demagogoue do not belong on the academic platform.' The 'elementary duty of scientific self-control' demanded a 'sharp distinction between the logically comparative analysis of reality by ideal-types in the logical sense and the value-judgment of reality on the basis of ideals.'"
2. This has essentially been the position on this issue that has been embraced by mainstream sociology. However, there was some challenge to this in the 1960s and 70s, and what emerged was a compromise position -- what I would call the "LET'S BE HONEST" position, which suggests that sociologists be honest about what biases they may have and by openly admitting them thereby allow people to take that into account in reading and evaluating their work. (which, I believe, is where the authors of this text stand, as reflected in their early discussion of the difference between IDEOLOGY and SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY.
I. On the issues of gender and race, it appears Weber was more enlightened than many of his colleagues.
1. Regarding gender, and probably because of the influence of his wife who was a feminist, he did embrace a more egalitarian view of the marriage relationship. He viewed women "primarily as human beings and only secondarily as members of the opposite sex." (p. 189) Nonetheless, he did not get away entirely from a "naturalistic" view of woman as primarily a sexual object, and he personally strayed from his monogamous relationship.
2. On race, I applaud his clear recognition of race as a SOCIAL, not a biological distinction ( a view that was not widely accepted at that time). See p. 188. And he makes a very telling point about race relations in the U.S. -- why race prejudice was deeper among poor whites. See bottom, p. 188.
Chapter 8: The Sociology of Form and Content: Simmel
A. A good way to introduce my brief exploration of the work of Georg Simmel would be to quote the very last sentence in the chapter -- "More than anything else,...Simmel was a philosophical sociologist concerned with how human beings can define their humanity in the context of an overwhelmingly objective culture." (p. 220)
B. Like Weber, Simmel acknowledged the growing industrialization, bureaucratization, rationalization of modern society (objective culture) especially in the modern metropolis, and how individuals experience or confront this.
1. He recognized that in many ways these developments represented progress, yet they also contributed to alienation and anomie. Or, to put this in somewhat different terms: to what extent has the scale of modern life overwhelmed and dominated individuals, and how can and should individuals respond to this?
C. Biographically, the authors highlight Simmel's struggles to secure an academic position, a major obstacle being the prevailing anti-Semitism, and the association of sociology with socialism, and in turn, socialism with Jewish intellectuals.
1. But there can be no doubt that Simmel lived in the midst of a vibrant intellectual community, and he himself would have a significant impact on several prominent, later sociologists such as Karl Mannheim, George Herbert Mead, and the Chicago School in general. His essay, "Metropolis and Mental Life" was itself highly influential in the development of urban sociology at the University of Chicago.
D. "Simmel regarded sociology as the study of social interaction." Although Simmel acknowledged that an entity called "society" did exist which confronts the individual, yet "...it was an entity whose 'reality' lay in the minds and actions of individual human beings." (p. 202)
1. Although I would not necessarily endorse the use of "dialectical" here, the authors go on to describe the relation of the individual to society in these terms. See mid., p. 203. (And I would question whether these "most private, internal impulses" are really independent of the larger social order.)
2. And on the very next page (p. 204 mid.), the authors underscore that for Simmel we all have a part of the self that is "outside" society, although this non-social element varies from person to person. (again, I wonder about that.)
E. Simmel also made some interesting observations about CONFLICT, especially the peculiar nature of conflict in Western societies, which is especially evident in modern metropolitan life. The following passage also captures well the phenomenon of the growing RATIONALIZATION and impersonality of modern life. See 2nd paragraph, p. 206.
F. Along these same lines, Simmel made some interesting and relevant points about modern society in his book, "The Philosophy of Money" (1900), which explored the way in which social relations are transformed by the modern money economy.
1. On the face of it, this sounds like Marx and his "historical materialism." But Simmel characterized his effort as getting "beneath" historical materialism to the more basic level of EXCHANGE as a form of social interaction among individuals.
2. Although he recognized ways in which exchange based on money might benefit society (p. 208), on balance, he saw its impact as negative (in terms not all that different from Marx). See top half of p. 209.
G. The so-called money economy becomes an important part of what Simmel calls OBECTIVE CULTURE, which comes to dominate individuals and closes off possibilities of individual expression and creativity. See 3rd & 4th paragraphs, p. 210, which brings out some of the adverse consequences of the domination of a money economy and objective culture.
1. Although such alienation seems most closely connected with capitalism, Simmel (like Weber) recognized the alienating potential of socialism and communism, which represent other forms of the domination of the individual by objective culture.
H. Simmel's views on gender appear to put him in the category of so many other theorists, endorsing a version of "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" thesis -- that women are more "closely and deeply rooted in the dark, primitive forces of nature than are men." (p. 215) See also the very bottom of p. 215.
I. Finally, I believe the authors do a nice job of bringing together some of these broad themes in Simmel's work -- See top half of p. 219.
______________________________________
That brings us up to Section V & Chapter 9, which is where I will pick up tomorrow (Thurs., 4/14). Be sure to incorporate the above notes in your class notes, and pay special attention to the cited passages, especially to understand Simmel.
Monday, April 4, 2011
FAMILY ACTIVITY II
Before I describe Family Activity II, let me call your attention to the previous blog post on Marx and Marxism, which you need to check out.
FAMILY ACTIVITY II: In light of the two xerox handouts I will distribute in class tomorrow (Tues., 4/5)("The Calvinist Manifesto" & "The Worship of Success"), in addition to the text's treatment of this aspect of Weber's work, I want each family to (jointly) compose a 1-2 page response to a couple basic questions: (1) how close or far away do you believe we are from realizing Weber's prediction? and (2) would you agree with Fukuyama (in "The Calvinist Manifesto") that religion, especially in America, has not faded in importance and that religion in general has served as an effective countervailing force in limiting the spread of the so-called "iron cage," OR would you say we are more like Schmookler describes (in "The Worship of Success")in which worshipping success is entirely secular, divested of any religious significance?
I will give you some class time on Thursday (4/7) and Tuesday (4/12) to confer with family members and compose a response. Then, a week from Thursday (4/14) I want a representative from each family to present your response to the class. I am not expecting these responses to be polished but they should at least be coherent. I am NOT going to ask you to submit your responses in writing. Immediately following these presentations, we will vote on what you believe was the best, most insightful response. I would suggest you encourage your family members to be in attendance so they can vote. However, let me remind you that if everyone just votes for their family, that my vote will be the tie breaker. I hope and trust that you can set aside family loyalty and vote for another family's response if you believe it is the best. We will do this by secret ballot.
All participating family members will earn 5 points for this exercise. The winning family will receive 2 bonus points.
FAMILY ACTIVITY II: In light of the two xerox handouts I will distribute in class tomorrow (Tues., 4/5)("The Calvinist Manifesto" & "The Worship of Success"), in addition to the text's treatment of this aspect of Weber's work, I want each family to (jointly) compose a 1-2 page response to a couple basic questions: (1) how close or far away do you believe we are from realizing Weber's prediction? and (2) would you agree with Fukuyama (in "The Calvinist Manifesto") that religion, especially in America, has not faded in importance and that religion in general has served as an effective countervailing force in limiting the spread of the so-called "iron cage," OR would you say we are more like Schmookler describes (in "The Worship of Success")in which worshipping success is entirely secular, divested of any religious significance?
I will give you some class time on Thursday (4/7) and Tuesday (4/12) to confer with family members and compose a response. Then, a week from Thursday (4/14) I want a representative from each family to present your response to the class. I am not expecting these responses to be polished but they should at least be coherent. I am NOT going to ask you to submit your responses in writing. Immediately following these presentations, we will vote on what you believe was the best, most insightful response. I would suggest you encourage your family members to be in attendance so they can vote. However, let me remind you that if everyone just votes for their family, that my vote will be the tie breaker. I hope and trust that you can set aside family loyalty and vote for another family's response if you believe it is the best. We will do this by secret ballot.
All participating family members will earn 5 points for this exercise. The winning family will receive 2 bonus points.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Making Amends II & Chapter 6
I did not feel terribly good about my performance last Thursday (3/24) just before the break, so I am going to post my lecture notes, streamlined somewhat and hopefully clarified. Time permitting, I may also post my notes on Chapter 6, which I planned to cover quickly anyway. That will bring us up to Section IV: Sociological Theories of Complexity and Form and Chapter 7, which will be where we will pick up when we get back together again next week.
________________________
Before getting back to where I started last Thursday, with Jonathan Safran Foer's quote about alienation in our industrialized agricultural system, let me give you a couple nice passages on Marx's MATERIALISM (in general):
"Like other 19th-century social scientists from Comte to Spencer, he (rightly) insisted that societies, like organisms, were systems, composed of parts (social institutions). Each part was influenced by its relationship to the rest, and the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. But this left open the question as to whether all institutions were of equal weight, and of how the different institutions fitted one another. The search was on for a master principle analogous to natural selection in biological evolution. For idealists, the dynamic of social development was humanity's intellectual capacity. For Marx, it had to be 'material' -- and he found it, eventually, in the concept of the mode of production."
And....
"Marx's analysis of capitalism concentrated on the economy. As for the rest of the social order, he saw it as inevitable that the laws, the forms of the family, the political institutions, the belief systems, religious or secular, had to conform to the basic requirements of the economy: that the laws would protect property above all else, and work to the advantage of the rich, and would take contract -- developed to govern commercial relationships -- rather than say, custom or birth-right as the prototype of all other relationships, even of marriage; that workers' children would be educated only sufficiently to enable them to do manual jobs and to respect property and their superiors; that religion would tell the poor their troubles were due to their own sins, and would preach rewards for good living only in another life, etc." (This gives you some idea of how Marx thought these other institutions were shaped by the economy or material conditions. Unfortunately, Marx did not really flesh out these connections very much, but focused more specifically on exposing what he thought were the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system.)
And now back to where I began in class last Thursday (3/24):
5. To overcome this alienation (such as described in Foer's passage from the midterm exam), one would need to overthrow the system that produces it. Replace capitalism with communism, or private property with common ownership of the means of production, which ultimately would restore meaningful labor to the masses of workers.
6. This change would also entail giving the masses the ability to develop all of their skills and talents (sometimes called Marx's "dream of the whole person"). And the passage from "The German Ideology" the authors quote (middle, p. 129) is one of Marx's most "dream-like" visions of a communist future. (Indeed, it sounds completely fanciful and unrealistic.)
H. The authors then go on to describe how Marx saw that capitalist system working -- how it necessarily leads to a situation where the rich become richer (eg., how the wealthy make money with money, "through investments and loans, the capitalist lives from the SURPLUS VALUE produced by the worker") and the poor become poorer, relatively speaking.
I. Marx's theories and predictions for the future are based on an optimistic view of human nature. He believed men to be good, essentially; it is society which has oppressed and alienated human beings that is bad. So, again, we need to re-make society (overthrow capitalism) in the image of the good in humanity.
J. "Marx and Engels,...can be viewed as both practical and ideological radicals stating that capitalist society ought to not just be tinkered with, but overthrown. Of course, they would argue that they were not ideologues at all, but only observers and interpreters -- theorists -- of the course of human history." (p. 133, top) (The above passage fits well with what the authors describe as "CRITICAL THEORY," which seeks to envision a better society and is critical of exisitng society but is also based on scientific observation.)
K. It's in the section on "Class, Gender, and Race" that the authors lay out Marx's view of revolution, as outlined in "The Communist Manifesto," which I stressed was basically an extreme political document intended to rally the workers to revolt, and not some scholarly treatise on capitalism and its fatal flaws.
1. Basically, historical change can be explained on the basis of class struggle (dialectical materialism). And what was happening in capitalism, Marx theorized, was that this class struggle was basically coming to a head -- two classes were becoming predominant: the bourgeoisie or capitalist and the proletariat or working class.
2. Although the authors do not use Marx's famous phrase, the capitalists were creating "the seeds of their own destruction." Creating the factories, bringing the masses of workers together in these factories, exploiting the workers for profit (which the system really demands)exacerbates alienation. Under the leadership of a few defectors form the bourgeoisie (such as Marx and Engels themselves) who understand this historical process, revolution will ensue. (Marx also referred to this leadership group as "the advanced sector of the proletariat.")
a.) Marx also recognized the need for an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism -- a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (socialism), which will have to manage things until conditions are ripe for the emergence of a classless, stateless communist society. (Which, as I noted, NEVER happened in the 20th or 21st century, for that matter. Most of the so-called "communist" states became just plain old dictatorships -- the revolutionaries who led the way just held on to power, and so Marx's goal was never realized, perhaps it is unrealizable.)
b.) The authors note that one reason the state did not wither away, as Marx predicted, is because the revolution was not worldwide and other (capitalist) states such as the U.S. saw this revolutionary socialist state as a threat. So they had to build up their military to defend themselves and sacrifice necessary economic development.
L. Regarding gender and the role of women, clearly Marx and Engels were more focused on class oppression. They did recognize women as oppressed but did not clearly identify women as members of the working class. Unfortunately, gender inequities remained in socialist countries after their revolutions. (Although I would say, on balance, women (especially in China) had more opportunities than generally was true in the West up until recent times.)
(Marx, and later Marxists, also saw class as more important than race. But W.E.B. DuBois was highly critical of this, noting that white working people in the U.S., even in the labor movement, were among the most racist. And he was not hopeful that some sort of working class revolution would inevitably lead to racial harmony.)
M. In general, Marx and Engels were big on ABOLISHING things such as private property, capitalism, religion, nationality, etc. But they were not so big on describing what would replace all these things they felt needed to be abolished. The nature of communist society was only superficially defined (eg., that vague, dream-like vision from "The German Ideology").
N. In relation to other theorists, the authors draw an instructive contrast with Durkheim and his concept of the DIVISION OF LABOR. *See top, p. 141. (can you run modern society without a complex division of labor, as Marx seems to imply?)
O. Clearly, Marx has been criticized or dismissed by capitalist writers who have pointed out the absurdity of his vision of a communist society. Of course, such criticism has the benefit of being promoted in the pervasive capitalist media.
1. Another writer (Ollman) suggests that distortions of Marx may be due, at least in part, to the limitations of our minds -- inability to grasp the whole picture.
P. I agree that "...we must not dismiss all questions about Marx and Engels as coming from either the unenlightened or those with a vested interest in capitalism." (p. 142) (but the immediate issues the authors, then, go on to to raise do not strike me as the most profound. More significant issues might be: Marx and Engels' failure to see how a communist revolution might fail, or exactly how would we make a transition to a communist social order.)
Q. Very generally, Marx and Engels can be given credit for bringing needed attention to the role of economics and class struggle in human affairs. And I don't believe it can be denied that they were perceptive about how business would come to dominate many aspects of society, such as Foer brings out in the case of agribusiness.
CHAPTER 6: MARXISM EXTENDED: LENIN AND LUXEMBURG
In this chapter we encounter two important thinkers and activists who not only were involved in trying to carry out Marx's ideas, but also added to Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism.
A. Lenin, of course, led the successful Russian revolution in 1917, and was the first leader of socialist Russia.
1. One thing that stands out about his leadership was his PRAGMATISM. Lenin was not a rigid ideologue who tried to institute socialism regardless of circumstances. *See bottom two paragraphs, p. 148.
B. Lenin also extended Marx's analysis of capitalism to include IMPERIALISM, which extended capitalism's control to underdeveloped parts of the world in Asia, Africa, and Latin America: "Such colonialism (or imperialism), accompanied by uneven economic development, is the essence of modern monopoly capitalism, the international version of the class struggle within nation states." (p. 150) That is, the ultimate clash would be between capitalist nations and poor nations. (This aspect of Lenin's thought impressed Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese leader who was seeking support to oust the French who were the colonial oppressors of the Vietnamese at the time.)
1. Today, of course, colonialism has largely been replaced by multinational corporations operating independently, with little national allegiance.
2. Also interesting is how Lenin saw the connection between Western capitalism, colonialism, and racial oppression such as was evident in the U.S.. He influenced the American Communist Party in the 1920s to take a strong stand against racism and segregation in this country.
C. Lenin defended the need for a "VANGUARD" and a "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" to lead the new fledgling socialist state in the direction of a truly classless, communist state.
D. Unfortunately, toward the end of his life, Lenin saw this proletarian dictatorship becoming increasingly bureaucratized; the Communist Party was "displaying a passion for bossing." Of course, with Stalin's rise to power, this bossing becomes institutionalized.
E. Rosa Luxemburg was a formidable Marxist interllectual and activist who concentrated her efforts in Germany. Among her more perceptive contributions were:
1. Her criticism of REFORMISM -- that is, tinkering with capitalism, allowing some "bourgeois-granted goals" -- that this would only forestall the revolution, which would be the working class's only real salvation. (Could say, today, that the working class has largely been "bought off" by such concessions, and the capitalists are still essentially in control.)
2. Luxemburg also recognized imperialism (is "globalization" today masquerading as imperialism?) as a new phase of capitalist control. As such, imperialism was the mortal enemy of the proletariat of all countries.
3. She saw MILITARISM as a necessary development in capitalist society to relieve some of the economic pressures created by overproduction (not all that different from President Eisenhower's warning about the growing power of the "military-industrial complex"). See mid., p. 159. "Thus, Luxemburg explained imperialism, militarism, and war as a single phenomenon of capital expansion and profit-making." (p. 159)
4. Finally, Luxemburg perceptively criticized Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" as being nothing more than a plain old dictatorship, and not the true workers' revolution. (Which is one of the themes of Warren Beatty's film "Reds" which came out in 1980.)
F. Rosa Luxemburg (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Lenin) foreshadows the later development of a variety of different Marxisms in the 20th century, some of which were highly critical of the Soviet Union and China, among other so-called Marxist states. (e.g., the Frankfurt School covered in Cahpter 16 of our text.)
_____________________________
That's all for now. Also be looking for a decription of our next short essay soon, either on this blog or in a blast email.
________________________
Before getting back to where I started last Thursday, with Jonathan Safran Foer's quote about alienation in our industrialized agricultural system, let me give you a couple nice passages on Marx's MATERIALISM (in general):
"Like other 19th-century social scientists from Comte to Spencer, he (rightly) insisted that societies, like organisms, were systems, composed of parts (social institutions). Each part was influenced by its relationship to the rest, and the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. But this left open the question as to whether all institutions were of equal weight, and of how the different institutions fitted one another. The search was on for a master principle analogous to natural selection in biological evolution. For idealists, the dynamic of social development was humanity's intellectual capacity. For Marx, it had to be 'material' -- and he found it, eventually, in the concept of the mode of production."
And....
"Marx's analysis of capitalism concentrated on the economy. As for the rest of the social order, he saw it as inevitable that the laws, the forms of the family, the political institutions, the belief systems, religious or secular, had to conform to the basic requirements of the economy: that the laws would protect property above all else, and work to the advantage of the rich, and would take contract -- developed to govern commercial relationships -- rather than say, custom or birth-right as the prototype of all other relationships, even of marriage; that workers' children would be educated only sufficiently to enable them to do manual jobs and to respect property and their superiors; that religion would tell the poor their troubles were due to their own sins, and would preach rewards for good living only in another life, etc." (This gives you some idea of how Marx thought these other institutions were shaped by the economy or material conditions. Unfortunately, Marx did not really flesh out these connections very much, but focused more specifically on exposing what he thought were the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system.)
And now back to where I began in class last Thursday (3/24):
5. To overcome this alienation (such as described in Foer's passage from the midterm exam), one would need to overthrow the system that produces it. Replace capitalism with communism, or private property with common ownership of the means of production, which ultimately would restore meaningful labor to the masses of workers.
6. This change would also entail giving the masses the ability to develop all of their skills and talents (sometimes called Marx's "dream of the whole person"). And the passage from "The German Ideology" the authors quote (middle, p. 129) is one of Marx's most "dream-like" visions of a communist future. (Indeed, it sounds completely fanciful and unrealistic.)
H. The authors then go on to describe how Marx saw that capitalist system working -- how it necessarily leads to a situation where the rich become richer (eg., how the wealthy make money with money, "through investments and loans, the capitalist lives from the SURPLUS VALUE produced by the worker") and the poor become poorer, relatively speaking.
I. Marx's theories and predictions for the future are based on an optimistic view of human nature. He believed men to be good, essentially; it is society which has oppressed and alienated human beings that is bad. So, again, we need to re-make society (overthrow capitalism) in the image of the good in humanity.
J. "Marx and Engels,...can be viewed as both practical and ideological radicals stating that capitalist society ought to not just be tinkered with, but overthrown. Of course, they would argue that they were not ideologues at all, but only observers and interpreters -- theorists -- of the course of human history." (p. 133, top) (The above passage fits well with what the authors describe as "CRITICAL THEORY," which seeks to envision a better society and is critical of exisitng society but is also based on scientific observation.)
K. It's in the section on "Class, Gender, and Race" that the authors lay out Marx's view of revolution, as outlined in "The Communist Manifesto," which I stressed was basically an extreme political document intended to rally the workers to revolt, and not some scholarly treatise on capitalism and its fatal flaws.
1. Basically, historical change can be explained on the basis of class struggle (dialectical materialism). And what was happening in capitalism, Marx theorized, was that this class struggle was basically coming to a head -- two classes were becoming predominant: the bourgeoisie or capitalist and the proletariat or working class.
2. Although the authors do not use Marx's famous phrase, the capitalists were creating "the seeds of their own destruction." Creating the factories, bringing the masses of workers together in these factories, exploiting the workers for profit (which the system really demands)exacerbates alienation. Under the leadership of a few defectors form the bourgeoisie (such as Marx and Engels themselves) who understand this historical process, revolution will ensue. (Marx also referred to this leadership group as "the advanced sector of the proletariat.")
a.) Marx also recognized the need for an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism -- a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (socialism), which will have to manage things until conditions are ripe for the emergence of a classless, stateless communist society. (Which, as I noted, NEVER happened in the 20th or 21st century, for that matter. Most of the so-called "communist" states became just plain old dictatorships -- the revolutionaries who led the way just held on to power, and so Marx's goal was never realized, perhaps it is unrealizable.)
b.) The authors note that one reason the state did not wither away, as Marx predicted, is because the revolution was not worldwide and other (capitalist) states such as the U.S. saw this revolutionary socialist state as a threat. So they had to build up their military to defend themselves and sacrifice necessary economic development.
L. Regarding gender and the role of women, clearly Marx and Engels were more focused on class oppression. They did recognize women as oppressed but did not clearly identify women as members of the working class. Unfortunately, gender inequities remained in socialist countries after their revolutions. (Although I would say, on balance, women (especially in China) had more opportunities than generally was true in the West up until recent times.)
(Marx, and later Marxists, also saw class as more important than race. But W.E.B. DuBois was highly critical of this, noting that white working people in the U.S., even in the labor movement, were among the most racist. And he was not hopeful that some sort of working class revolution would inevitably lead to racial harmony.)
M. In general, Marx and Engels were big on ABOLISHING things such as private property, capitalism, religion, nationality, etc. But they were not so big on describing what would replace all these things they felt needed to be abolished. The nature of communist society was only superficially defined (eg., that vague, dream-like vision from "The German Ideology").
N. In relation to other theorists, the authors draw an instructive contrast with Durkheim and his concept of the DIVISION OF LABOR. *See top, p. 141. (can you run modern society without a complex division of labor, as Marx seems to imply?)
O. Clearly, Marx has been criticized or dismissed by capitalist writers who have pointed out the absurdity of his vision of a communist society. Of course, such criticism has the benefit of being promoted in the pervasive capitalist media.
1. Another writer (Ollman) suggests that distortions of Marx may be due, at least in part, to the limitations of our minds -- inability to grasp the whole picture.
P. I agree that "...we must not dismiss all questions about Marx and Engels as coming from either the unenlightened or those with a vested interest in capitalism." (p. 142) (but the immediate issues the authors, then, go on to to raise do not strike me as the most profound. More significant issues might be: Marx and Engels' failure to see how a communist revolution might fail, or exactly how would we make a transition to a communist social order.)
Q. Very generally, Marx and Engels can be given credit for bringing needed attention to the role of economics and class struggle in human affairs. And I don't believe it can be denied that they were perceptive about how business would come to dominate many aspects of society, such as Foer brings out in the case of agribusiness.
CHAPTER 6: MARXISM EXTENDED: LENIN AND LUXEMBURG
In this chapter we encounter two important thinkers and activists who not only were involved in trying to carry out Marx's ideas, but also added to Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism.
A. Lenin, of course, led the successful Russian revolution in 1917, and was the first leader of socialist Russia.
1. One thing that stands out about his leadership was his PRAGMATISM. Lenin was not a rigid ideologue who tried to institute socialism regardless of circumstances. *See bottom two paragraphs, p. 148.
B. Lenin also extended Marx's analysis of capitalism to include IMPERIALISM, which extended capitalism's control to underdeveloped parts of the world in Asia, Africa, and Latin America: "Such colonialism (or imperialism), accompanied by uneven economic development, is the essence of modern monopoly capitalism, the international version of the class struggle within nation states." (p. 150) That is, the ultimate clash would be between capitalist nations and poor nations. (This aspect of Lenin's thought impressed Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese leader who was seeking support to oust the French who were the colonial oppressors of the Vietnamese at the time.)
1. Today, of course, colonialism has largely been replaced by multinational corporations operating independently, with little national allegiance.
2. Also interesting is how Lenin saw the connection between Western capitalism, colonialism, and racial oppression such as was evident in the U.S.. He influenced the American Communist Party in the 1920s to take a strong stand against racism and segregation in this country.
C. Lenin defended the need for a "VANGUARD" and a "DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" to lead the new fledgling socialist state in the direction of a truly classless, communist state.
D. Unfortunately, toward the end of his life, Lenin saw this proletarian dictatorship becoming increasingly bureaucratized; the Communist Party was "displaying a passion for bossing." Of course, with Stalin's rise to power, this bossing becomes institutionalized.
E. Rosa Luxemburg was a formidable Marxist interllectual and activist who concentrated her efforts in Germany. Among her more perceptive contributions were:
1. Her criticism of REFORMISM -- that is, tinkering with capitalism, allowing some "bourgeois-granted goals" -- that this would only forestall the revolution, which would be the working class's only real salvation. (Could say, today, that the working class has largely been "bought off" by such concessions, and the capitalists are still essentially in control.)
2. Luxemburg also recognized imperialism (is "globalization" today masquerading as imperialism?) as a new phase of capitalist control. As such, imperialism was the mortal enemy of the proletariat of all countries.
3. She saw MILITARISM as a necessary development in capitalist society to relieve some of the economic pressures created by overproduction (not all that different from President Eisenhower's warning about the growing power of the "military-industrial complex"). See mid., p. 159. "Thus, Luxemburg explained imperialism, militarism, and war as a single phenomenon of capital expansion and profit-making." (p. 159)
4. Finally, Luxemburg perceptively criticized Lenin's "dictatorship of the proletariat" as being nothing more than a plain old dictatorship, and not the true workers' revolution. (Which is one of the themes of Warren Beatty's film "Reds" which came out in 1980.)
F. Rosa Luxemburg (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Lenin) foreshadows the later development of a variety of different Marxisms in the 20th century, some of which were highly critical of the Soviet Union and China, among other so-called Marxist states. (e.g., the Frankfurt School covered in Cahpter 16 of our text.)
_____________________________
That's all for now. Also be looking for a decription of our next short essay soon, either on this blog or in a blast email.
Friday, March 18, 2011
FAMILY QUESTIONS FOR THE MIDTERM
Thanks for getting your questions in in a timely manner. I was able to work through them and make my selections. You will note in some instances I did a substantial amount of editing, even changing the question slightly. Also, even though some family members were missing-in-action, I will give them credit. Perhaps on the next family exercise these MIAs can carry the load.
RED FAMILY (Holly, Alex, Peter, Jamar) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify TWO of the three ideas that the positivist, evolutionary, and functional theories, featured in Section II of our text, contributed to sociological theory. (2)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following: (1) society is orderly and rational, and our job is to understand it scientifically as it is. (2) society evolves or changes slowly and corrects its own problems. (3) society is like an organism with interrelated parts that meet needs and perform functions.
2. Briefly describe the basic difference between the conservative view of society and the view of the Enlightenment thinkers, as brought out in the first proposition from the xerox handout on the 10 propositions about society stemming from the conservative reaction to the Enlightenment. (2)
ANSWER: Conservatives were SOCIAL REALISTS, who believed society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it, whereas the Enlightenment thinkers were SOCIAL NOMINALISTS, who believed only individuals exist and society is just a name one gives to the interrelationship among individuals.
BLUE FAMILY (Wilson, Kelly, Lauren, Tim) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify and briefly describe TWO of the three stages of Comte's law of societal evolution. (4)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following:
THEOLOGICAL (or fictitious) STAGE: Man believed in spiritual or supernatural forces behind natural phenomena, which corresponded with a theocratic form of government -- leaders thought to have special knowledge or connections with the spirit realm. Order but no progress.
METAPHYSICAL (or abstract) STAGE: rejects spiritual or supernatural explanation of the world in favor of one based on philosophical principles; ultimately gives rise to democratic ideas (revolutionary and critical). Progress but no order.
POSITIVISTIC (or scientific) STAGE: in the process of being born, where factual, scientific explanation of the world takes hold and scientists (especially sociologists) need to take charge of society. Order and progress.
2. Briefly explain the difference between "repressive" sanctions (connected with primitive or traditional society) and "restitutive" sanctions (connected with modern society). (2)
ANSWER: Repressive sanctions stem from penal law and focus on punishing (harming or killing) someone who violates the law, whereas restitutive sanctions are more concerned with restoring the previous state of affairs rather than merely punishing someone.
ORANGE FAMILY (Katie, John, Stephanie, Terry) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. According to Durkheim, what was primarily responsible for the growth of the division of labor and subsequent development of modern society? (1)
ANSWER: increasing population density
2. Describe the difference between sociological theory and ideology. (2)
ANSWER: ideology is value-laden, while sociological theory is not -- sociological theory strives to be objective.
3. Briefly explain or describe ONE of the analogies Comte draws between his stages of societal evolution and three stages of human life. (2)
ANSWER: Any one of the following:
(1)theological -- childhood, because children tend to see the world as mysterious, inhabited by spirits
(2)metaphysical -- adolescence, because young people tend to be imaginative, idealistic, also critical of and reject authority.
(3)positivistic -- adult, because adults tend to be more realistic, have more experience, factual, more mature.
GREEN FAMILY (T.J., Kit, Brianna, William) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. Among the three "Research Traditions" the authors identify in the first chapter is "Critical Theory." What is "Critical Theory?" (2)
ANSWER: Critical theory rejects the idea that knowledge can be objective and in contrast to positivism which can only reveal how to reach goals but is morally indifferent to the goals themselves, critical theory attempts to discover what these goals should be, or seeks to envision a better society.
2. What is social contract theory? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that humans had formed together and decided instead of living in an unorganized, chaotic, insecure state of nature that they would give up some of this natural freedom in return for stability and security of the state.
3. What is social realism? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it.
_______________________
That's it. REMEMBER, ALL OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL BE ON THE MIDTERM EXAM. See you next Tuesday.
RED FAMILY (Holly, Alex, Peter, Jamar) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify TWO of the three ideas that the positivist, evolutionary, and functional theories, featured in Section II of our text, contributed to sociological theory. (2)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following: (1) society is orderly and rational, and our job is to understand it scientifically as it is. (2) society evolves or changes slowly and corrects its own problems. (3) society is like an organism with interrelated parts that meet needs and perform functions.
2. Briefly describe the basic difference between the conservative view of society and the view of the Enlightenment thinkers, as brought out in the first proposition from the xerox handout on the 10 propositions about society stemming from the conservative reaction to the Enlightenment. (2)
ANSWER: Conservatives were SOCIAL REALISTS, who believed society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it, whereas the Enlightenment thinkers were SOCIAL NOMINALISTS, who believed only individuals exist and society is just a name one gives to the interrelationship among individuals.
BLUE FAMILY (Wilson, Kelly, Lauren, Tim) earn 7 activity points.
1. Identify and briefly describe TWO of the three stages of Comte's law of societal evolution. (4)
ANSWER: Any 2 of the following:
THEOLOGICAL (or fictitious) STAGE: Man believed in spiritual or supernatural forces behind natural phenomena, which corresponded with a theocratic form of government -- leaders thought to have special knowledge or connections with the spirit realm. Order but no progress.
METAPHYSICAL (or abstract) STAGE: rejects spiritual or supernatural explanation of the world in favor of one based on philosophical principles; ultimately gives rise to democratic ideas (revolutionary and critical). Progress but no order.
POSITIVISTIC (or scientific) STAGE: in the process of being born, where factual, scientific explanation of the world takes hold and scientists (especially sociologists) need to take charge of society. Order and progress.
2. Briefly explain the difference between "repressive" sanctions (connected with primitive or traditional society) and "restitutive" sanctions (connected with modern society). (2)
ANSWER: Repressive sanctions stem from penal law and focus on punishing (harming or killing) someone who violates the law, whereas restitutive sanctions are more concerned with restoring the previous state of affairs rather than merely punishing someone.
ORANGE FAMILY (Katie, John, Stephanie, Terry) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. According to Durkheim, what was primarily responsible for the growth of the division of labor and subsequent development of modern society? (1)
ANSWER: increasing population density
2. Describe the difference between sociological theory and ideology. (2)
ANSWER: ideology is value-laden, while sociological theory is not -- sociological theory strives to be objective.
3. Briefly explain or describe ONE of the analogies Comte draws between his stages of societal evolution and three stages of human life. (2)
ANSWER: Any one of the following:
(1)theological -- childhood, because children tend to see the world as mysterious, inhabited by spirits
(2)metaphysical -- adolescence, because young people tend to be imaginative, idealistic, also critical of and reject authority.
(3)positivistic -- adult, because adults tend to be more realistic, have more experience, factual, more mature.
GREEN FAMILY (T.J., Kit, Brianna, William) earn 7 activity points + 1 bonus point.
1. Among the three "Research Traditions" the authors identify in the first chapter is "Critical Theory." What is "Critical Theory?" (2)
ANSWER: Critical theory rejects the idea that knowledge can be objective and in contrast to positivism which can only reveal how to reach goals but is morally indifferent to the goals themselves, critical theory attempts to discover what these goals should be, or seeks to envision a better society.
2. What is social contract theory? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that humans had formed together and decided instead of living in an unorganized, chaotic, insecure state of nature that they would give up some of this natural freedom in return for stability and security of the state.
3. What is social realism? (1)
ANSWER: The idea that society is a reality greater than the individuals who comprise it.
_______________________
That's it. REMEMBER, ALL OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL BE ON THE MIDTERM EXAM. See you next Tuesday.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Durkheim Quotes & Lecture Notes
Before posting the passages that I quoted in class yesterday, let me remind everyone to check out the previous blog post which describes the family activity of making up questions for the midterm exam. I TRUST YOU'LL ALL BE PREPARED TO BEGIN BRAINSTORMING SOME QUESTIONS WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS NEXT TUESDAY, 3/15.
______________________
The first quote was from Durkheim in which he explicitly utilizes the "organic analogy" in connection with describing the role of "restitutive law" in modern society.
"This law (restitutive) definitely plays a role in society analogous to that played by the central nervous system in the organism. The latter has as its task, in effect, the regulation of the different functions in the body in such a way as to make them harmonize."
The next passage, from another secondary source on Durkheim, highlights the point I was belaboring yesterday in class -- that Durkheim recognized the limitations of the division of labor to bring about "organic solidarity" by itself:
"By the end of "The Division of Labor in Society," it is clear that Durkheim had doubts about the possibility of organic solidarity emerging automatically from the increasing division of labor. It would require a more conscious effort of planning and reform to bring it about." and that additional effort would mainly be in the form of a "moral education."
One of the major problems in modern society that needed to be addressed was the condition Durkheim called "anomie," and this next passage, from a different secondary source, has a good description of anomie that is lacking in our text:
"In general, the anomic state of modern society has led to a relatively unrestrained citizenry, wherein people primarily look out for their own interests and have disregard for those of others....The individual's social part, Durkheim insisted, is just as natural to humans as their individual (self-interested) part. The problems of modern society are due not to a basically anti-social human nature but to the structure of contemporary society, which does not adequately nurture, develop, and sustain the individual's socially oriented part." -- and, again, sociology could play a key role in developing a new morality (or "science of ethics") to cultivate the "individual's socially oriented part." I would also add that "anomie" is often simply defined as a condition of "normlessness," or breakdown of moral guidelines.
I went on from here to present some observations about what Durkheim had in mind in terms of a moral education. So, let me continue with some additional lecture notes on Durkheim:
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ("The Rules of Sociological Method")
A. First, let me note that we are NOT talking about a "how to" book on research methods, but more of a philosophical manifesto for sociology, defining what was unique about sociology, how sociologists look at society.
B. Durkheim's methodology rests solidly on a foundation of SOCIAL REALISM -- "...society has a reality sui generis -- that is an objective reality apart from the individuals within it." (p. 96) as Durkheim himself goes on to observe in his own words.
1. More specifically, he defined sociology as the science of institutions, of their genesis and functioning. (as we'll see later, Ahrens will likewise focus on institutions, or what he calls "corporate persons.")
C. Another concept that logically connects with the above is that of SOCIAL FACTS, which may be intangible but are nonetheless real things that have a coercive effect on individuals. See bottom, p.96 - top, p.97.
D. And Durkheim urged sociologists to study the FUNCTION of social facts -- that is, objectively, what role they play in society (and not in terms to some predetermined purpose or end, meaning Durkheim was rejecting TELEOLOGY).
E. And, ultimately, we want to understand the cause(s) of social facts.
METHODOLOGY DEMONSTRATED: "SUICIDE"
("Suicide" did provide a working example of the application of his methodology, but I would say he also saw "Suicide" as a vindication of sorts of his SOCIAL REALISM.)
A. The authors note briefly how Durkheim demonstrated that other explanations of this phenomenon (insanity, imitation, etc.) were inadequate. By examining SUICIDE RATES (itself a "social fact"), we could trace fluctuations in these rates to social conditions. Durkheim identified 4 types, among which I would say "anomic suicide" is the most significant.
1. EGOISTIC SUICIDE: "The individual is isolated and potentially suicidal because the "ties uniting him with others are slackened or broken" because of the "weakening of the social fabric." -- or simply, "excessive individualism" which modern, industrial society tended to encourage. (eg., higher rates among Protestants - a more individualistic religion, higher rates among urban dwellers, unmarried men.)
2. ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE: "...is the obverse of egoistic suicide. It is the result of the excessive integration of the individual in the group." (eg., more prevalent in societies bound by the "collective conscience," soldiers generally, later examples: Japanese kami-kaze pilots WWII, cults (Jim Jones Temple), even Islamic terrorists/suicide bombers.) This type of suicide is a great example of the power of social pressure.
3. ANOMIC SUICIDE: "...is a result of the breakdown of the moral continuity (or moral guidelines) and the resulting disturbance of social equilibrium." Society does not exercise the necessary restraint on individuals and their desires. (eg., businessmen, liberal professions, celebrities, espcially those who become suddenly famous.)
4. FATALISTIC SUICIDE: the obverse of anomic suicide. Results from excessive or oppressive social regulation; no hope for the future. (eg., slaves, young husbands, childless, unmarried women.)
Overall: Durkheim sets these types up as opposites of each other:
egoistic -- altruistic
anomic -- fatalistic
And clearly, he sees egoistic and anomic forms more prevalent in modern society.
See top, p. 100.
B. Interesting how this relates to marriage and divorce. Generally speaking, Durkheim found marriage (from the standpoint of suicide) to be GOOD FOR MEN BUT BAD FOR WOMEN. Nonetheless, he went on to propose marriage be made more restrictive by eliminating divorce, even though that might lead to more women committing suicide. Sort of a "lesser evil argument" showing a distinct male bias.
GENDER DIFFERENTIATION:
A. As the above point about suicide and marriage suggests, Durkheim accepted the notion that there were fundamental physical and mental differences between the sexes which were natural or biologically based, which meant men and women were suited to different tasks in social life.
B. "Women's domestic role was 'natural' and functional in the logic of progressive specialization, as well as being important to the moral health of society." (p. 112)
C. Durkheim also appears to have bought into the stereotype of women as closer to nature; men more rational and intellectual. And in this respect, if one of the marks of social progress is control of nature, then it is a sign of progress that men control women.
D. I believe it is undeniable that Durkheim made some significant contributions to sociology and explored some important issues regarding the transition to modern society, but on the gender issue I fully concur with the authors' assessment --
"Like so many classical sociologists, Durkheim's sociological imagination seems to have deserted him when it comes to the question of gender." (p. 114)
___________________________
That brings us up to the critique and conclusions section, which is where I will pick up in class on Tuesday, 3/15, and then get into Chapter 5. Finally, DON'T FORGET TO CHECK THE PREVIOUS BLOG POST.
______________________
The first quote was from Durkheim in which he explicitly utilizes the "organic analogy" in connection with describing the role of "restitutive law" in modern society.
"This law (restitutive) definitely plays a role in society analogous to that played by the central nervous system in the organism. The latter has as its task, in effect, the regulation of the different functions in the body in such a way as to make them harmonize."
The next passage, from another secondary source on Durkheim, highlights the point I was belaboring yesterday in class -- that Durkheim recognized the limitations of the division of labor to bring about "organic solidarity" by itself:
"By the end of "The Division of Labor in Society," it is clear that Durkheim had doubts about the possibility of organic solidarity emerging automatically from the increasing division of labor. It would require a more conscious effort of planning and reform to bring it about." and that additional effort would mainly be in the form of a "moral education."
One of the major problems in modern society that needed to be addressed was the condition Durkheim called "anomie," and this next passage, from a different secondary source, has a good description of anomie that is lacking in our text:
"In general, the anomic state of modern society has led to a relatively unrestrained citizenry, wherein people primarily look out for their own interests and have disregard for those of others....The individual's social part, Durkheim insisted, is just as natural to humans as their individual (self-interested) part. The problems of modern society are due not to a basically anti-social human nature but to the structure of contemporary society, which does not adequately nurture, develop, and sustain the individual's socially oriented part." -- and, again, sociology could play a key role in developing a new morality (or "science of ethics") to cultivate the "individual's socially oriented part." I would also add that "anomie" is often simply defined as a condition of "normlessness," or breakdown of moral guidelines.
I went on from here to present some observations about what Durkheim had in mind in terms of a moral education. So, let me continue with some additional lecture notes on Durkheim:
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ("The Rules of Sociological Method")
A. First, let me note that we are NOT talking about a "how to" book on research methods, but more of a philosophical manifesto for sociology, defining what was unique about sociology, how sociologists look at society.
B. Durkheim's methodology rests solidly on a foundation of SOCIAL REALISM -- "...society has a reality sui generis -- that is an objective reality apart from the individuals within it." (p. 96) as Durkheim himself goes on to observe in his own words.
1. More specifically, he defined sociology as the science of institutions, of their genesis and functioning. (as we'll see later, Ahrens will likewise focus on institutions, or what he calls "corporate persons.")
C. Another concept that logically connects with the above is that of SOCIAL FACTS, which may be intangible but are nonetheless real things that have a coercive effect on individuals. See bottom, p.96 - top, p.97.
D. And Durkheim urged sociologists to study the FUNCTION of social facts -- that is, objectively, what role they play in society (and not in terms to some predetermined purpose or end, meaning Durkheim was rejecting TELEOLOGY).
E. And, ultimately, we want to understand the cause(s) of social facts.
METHODOLOGY DEMONSTRATED: "SUICIDE"
("Suicide" did provide a working example of the application of his methodology, but I would say he also saw "Suicide" as a vindication of sorts of his SOCIAL REALISM.)
A. The authors note briefly how Durkheim demonstrated that other explanations of this phenomenon (insanity, imitation, etc.) were inadequate. By examining SUICIDE RATES (itself a "social fact"), we could trace fluctuations in these rates to social conditions. Durkheim identified 4 types, among which I would say "anomic suicide" is the most significant.
1. EGOISTIC SUICIDE: "The individual is isolated and potentially suicidal because the "ties uniting him with others are slackened or broken" because of the "weakening of the social fabric." -- or simply, "excessive individualism" which modern, industrial society tended to encourage. (eg., higher rates among Protestants - a more individualistic religion, higher rates among urban dwellers, unmarried men.)
2. ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE: "...is the obverse of egoistic suicide. It is the result of the excessive integration of the individual in the group." (eg., more prevalent in societies bound by the "collective conscience," soldiers generally, later examples: Japanese kami-kaze pilots WWII, cults (Jim Jones Temple), even Islamic terrorists/suicide bombers.) This type of suicide is a great example of the power of social pressure.
3. ANOMIC SUICIDE: "...is a result of the breakdown of the moral continuity (or moral guidelines) and the resulting disturbance of social equilibrium." Society does not exercise the necessary restraint on individuals and their desires. (eg., businessmen, liberal professions, celebrities, espcially those who become suddenly famous.)
4. FATALISTIC SUICIDE: the obverse of anomic suicide. Results from excessive or oppressive social regulation; no hope for the future. (eg., slaves, young husbands, childless, unmarried women.)
Overall: Durkheim sets these types up as opposites of each other:
egoistic -- altruistic
anomic -- fatalistic
And clearly, he sees egoistic and anomic forms more prevalent in modern society.
See top, p. 100.
B. Interesting how this relates to marriage and divorce. Generally speaking, Durkheim found marriage (from the standpoint of suicide) to be GOOD FOR MEN BUT BAD FOR WOMEN. Nonetheless, he went on to propose marriage be made more restrictive by eliminating divorce, even though that might lead to more women committing suicide. Sort of a "lesser evil argument" showing a distinct male bias.
GENDER DIFFERENTIATION:
A. As the above point about suicide and marriage suggests, Durkheim accepted the notion that there were fundamental physical and mental differences between the sexes which were natural or biologically based, which meant men and women were suited to different tasks in social life.
B. "Women's domestic role was 'natural' and functional in the logic of progressive specialization, as well as being important to the moral health of society." (p. 112)
C. Durkheim also appears to have bought into the stereotype of women as closer to nature; men more rational and intellectual. And in this respect, if one of the marks of social progress is control of nature, then it is a sign of progress that men control women.
D. I believe it is undeniable that Durkheim made some significant contributions to sociology and explored some important issues regarding the transition to modern society, but on the gender issue I fully concur with the authors' assessment --
"Like so many classical sociologists, Durkheim's sociological imagination seems to have deserted him when it comes to the question of gender." (p. 114)
___________________________
That brings us up to the critique and conclusions section, which is where I will pick up in class on Tuesday, 3/15, and then get into Chapter 5. Finally, DON'T FORGET TO CHECK THE PREVIOUS BLOG POST.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
First Family Activity: Making Up Questions for the Midterm Exam
I want each of the four families (listed below) to come up with FIVE short-answer questions for the midterm exam from anything we have covered since the beginning of the term, which would include mainly lecture notes, blog material, xerox handouts, and even Chapter 5 in the text (which I plan to get to next week). This is an exercise designed to put you in my shoes, so to speak, and consider what you believe students should know or be tested on from what we have covered in this course so far. I'll throw out some samples of short-answer questions in class, so you have some idea what I am looking for. But I can tell you what I do NOT want. I do NOT want open-ended, opinion questions, NO true-false or multiple-choice (but I will accept fill-in-the-blank). I will give the families class-time next Tuesday, 3/15 & Thursday, 3/17 to brainstorm some questions and come to a consensus on the best five questions. Each of the families will, then, submit to me in writing or via email your five (AND ONLY FIVE) questions AND ANSWERS. I will need these questions and answers NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MARCH 18TH BY NOON. I will try to select at least two questions from each family for inclusion on the midterm exam. For every additional question I select, that family will earn a bonus point and have the added benefit of knowing more of the questions on the exam. So, try to put some effort into this. I will post the questions and answers I selected on this blog no later than SUNDAY, MARCH 20TH, so you can study them in preparation for the midterm exam which will be given on TUESDAY, MARCH 22ND. This exercise is worth 7 points, and you must participate in order to earn these points.
FAMILIES: BLUE: Kelly Berry, Wilson Hood, Tim Johnson, Lauren Watts
GREEN: Kit Candler, T.J. Dill, Brianna Grant, William James
RED: Jamar Diggs, Holly Holladay, Peter McGiffin, Alex Rogers
ORANGE: Terry Martin, Katie McChesney, John Robinson, Stephanie Walrath
FAMILIES: BLUE: Kelly Berry, Wilson Hood, Tim Johnson, Lauren Watts
GREEN: Kit Candler, T.J. Dill, Brianna Grant, William James
RED: Jamar Diggs, Holly Holladay, Peter McGiffin, Alex Rogers
ORANGE: Terry Martin, Katie McChesney, John Robinson, Stephanie Walrath
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)