Twenty-sixth Meeting (4/28/08):

Today we talked about Bourdieu's ideas of habitus and cultural, social, intellectual and economic capital.  We also talked about his ideas regarding the place of art in society (and its role in separating the dominant from the dominated).

Our discussion not only elaborated some of Bourdieu's most highly regarded ideas, but I also talked about how many of his ideas might be considered "recycled" ideas from Parsons (how is habitus different than social norms?)  or from other theorists. His writing, also, can seem as impenetrable as Parsons's...
 

Twenty-fifth Meeting (4/23/08):

Our discussion focused on the various "post-isms," including specifically poststructuralism and postmodernism.

We talked about the idea of representations (e.g. discourse) as central to the idea of "reality." (I sketched Rene Magritte's famous image:

and we talked about what "is" and what is not "real.")

Twenty-fourth Meeting (4/21/08):

Second Midterm Exam Postmortem (see grades).  We also talked about the Collins reading.

The discussion focused on Collins's take on the situated experience of African-American women in American society.  Our own discussion broached the topic of the ways in which race and gender (and class) interact for people in the United States.
 

Twenty-third Meeting (4/16/08):

Second Midterm Exam!
 

Twenty-second Meeting (4/14/08):

Today I anticipated a fire drill at 10:00 am, and until then we spent the first two-thirds of the class meeting discussing Chodorow's theories about the origins of gender differences (Rosemary presented the reading to the class), after which we talked about the structure and topices for the second midterm exam, which will be on Wednesday, April 16.

Nancy Chodorow's ideas about the origins of gender stem from her neo-Freudian viewpoint on the formation of personality and the importance of early-childhood experiences for the formation of life-long gender roles.  She rejects Freud's "biology is destiny" model in favor of one that theorizes the asymmetry of the mother-child gender relationship.  We talked about the apparent conservatism of Chodorow's ideas - and the way that they seem to "blame mother" for everything.  Also, because they situate the crucial formative stages for gender identity in the "mother-child" relationship, they offer little practical use for this generation of people; according to Chodorow we can only help the next generation sort out its gender roles better by having men and women share the "mothering" duties, while at the same time arguing that our gendered roles are largely beyond our control (so: how would we change our gender roles?).  I also distributed a short "suggested review topics" half-sheet to aid studying for the midterm exam on Wednesday.

Twenty-first Meeting (4/9/08):

Today we talked about Dorothy Smith's concepts of feminist theory - or a feminist sociology.

Dorothy Smith described a feminist sociology that many people have called "gynocentric" because it attempted to assert the special world view that women have because of their social positions.

Twentieth Meeting (4/7/08):

I had to cancel today's class, because I was home sick with a lousy flu.

Nineteenth Meeting (4/2/08):

Today we began our discussion of symbolic interactionism, talking about the readings by Blumer, Goffman and the two readings by Hochschild.

This discussion centered largely on the Goffman piece, and the "performative" aspects of social interaction, as Shakespeare put it, "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."  We also talked about the extent to which for symbolic interactionists, there is no objective identity - we are the sum of all the "performances" we give, no more and no less.
 

Eighteenth Meeting (3/31/08):

Today we continued to discuss Freud's interesting (but un-testable) ideas about how human personalities are structured, and what those structures imply for human behavior.  Towards to end of class we touched only briefly on symbolic interactionism, which we will treat much more fully on Monday.

We talked again, and in more detail, about the id, eg and superego; about anal, oral, latent and genital phases; about the Oedipal and Electra complexes; about penis envy and transference as well as about the different strands of psychology (e.g., behaviorist vs. psychoanalytic) and various other connected ideas.  I mentioned again the interesting differences between the classical and contemporary theories, and also asked about the similarities (and differences) between Freud's ideas and earlier contemporary theories about which we've read (that is, the connections between Merton's and Parsons's version of structural-fucntionalism and Durkheim; between the critical theories and Weber and Marx; between Freud and exchange theories), with an emphasis on the the different levels of agency accorded to the individual as the crucial factor in social reality.  For Freud, life outside the mind was much less important than each person's understanding of her or his own personality.  Freud was famous for asserting that "biology is destiny."

Seventeenth Meeting (3/26/08):

Today we continued to discuss Freud's interesting (but un-testable) ideas about how human personalities are structured, and what those structures imply for human behavior.  Towards to end of class we touched only briefly on symbolic interactionism, which we will treat much more fully on Monday.

We talked again, and in more detail, about the id, ego and superego; about anal, oral, latent and genital phases; about the Oedipal and Electra complexes; about penis envy and transference as well as about the different strands of psychology (e.g., behaviorist vs. psychoanalytic) and various other connected ideas.  I mentioned again the interesting differences between the classical and contemporary theories, and also asked about the similarities (and differences) between Freud's ideas and earlier contemporary theories about which we've read (that is, the connections between Merton's and Parsons's version of structural-fucntionalism and Durkheim; between the critical theories and Weber and Marx; between Freud and exchange theories), with an emphasis on the the different levels of agency accorded to the individual as the crucial factor in social reality.  For Freud, life outside the mind was much less important than each person's understanding of her or his own personality.  Freud was famous for asserting that "biology is destiny."

I mentioned Skinner and Pavlov as foundational behavioral psychologists, and also mentioned Bruno Bettelheim (author of The Uses of Enchantment) and Karen Horney (author of Our Inner Conflicts and Self Analysis) as eminent Freudian or neo-Freudian theorists of psychoanalysis.

Sixteenth Meeting (3/24/08):

Today I talked about some of the broad similarities among the classical theorists, and the tendency among more recent theorists to see society as characterized by individual action.  I also talked about some of Freud's ideas regarding personality (as well as our own understanding of what "personality" is - and isn't).

I mentioned the scientific idea of reductionism, which is common among most scientific studies, but unusual in sociology: we tend to look at whole groups (at rates) for explanations, rather than the smallest part (the individual).  I mentioned biology's reductionist ideas about understanding organisms by studying their parts (e.g., cells), though even biology is not that simple: there are chemical biologists, microbiologists, cell biologists, organ-system biologists and biologists who look at whole organisms as well as social interactions among animals (bees) and animal societies with ecosystems. Freud thought of himself as a biologist, and had a rather reductionist idea about human behavior.   Personality, which Freud proposed a structure for, is not behavior or ideas, though we usually assume that they stem from personality, which remains indistinct.  I talked about Freud's model of the id, ego and super ego, and we talked a bit about Freud's oral, anal and genital phases.

Please click here to find the Freud reading - and read it by Wednesday! (along with the introductory material in Chapter 5, on symbolic interactionism).  See assignments for more information.

Fifteenth Meeting (3/12/08):

Kashirah and Thomas presented on the readings by Homans and Blau, respectively, and we then moved to the ways in which exchange theory works in everyday life, and how it seems to resonate with much of our everyday experience.  Again, I raised a bunch of objections to the validity of the theory, even though at first blush it seems to explain things so neatly; in fact, by explaining everything, actually explains nothing...

We talked about intrinsic and extrinsic relationships and how they seem different, but that exchange theory purports to explain them both (which would the receptionist at a doctor's office be?).  We talked about the idea of equilibrium in relationships, and how it can be a problem when one feels one isn't "getting" as much as one gives.  We talked about the "value" of gifts (a gift from a small child becomes valuable because of its nature, not its cash value), and the over-simplifications that economists make when they try to attach objective value to things.  In the end, there doesn't seem to be anything that isn't the result of a rational decision-making process; even strong self-sacrifice (I tried to use an example from The Tale of Two Cities and Casablanca, but without much success) or suicide can be "explained" as a rational choice (an example of "getting" more than one "gives").  (Exchange theory gives a very different explanation for suicide than Durkheim does.)  In this way exchange theory becomes tautological: it must have been a rational choice because someone chose to do it.  Thus, it doesn't explain much.

I didn't have the reading on Freud ready by Wednesday, so I asked the class to check this website for that reading - which is now available.

Fourteenth Meeting (3/10/08):

I returned midterm exams, talked about the strange groupings of the grades (two groups - one with scores of 72% and better and another group with scores of 60% or less).  We began talking about exchange theory (also sometimes called rational choice theory).

Exchange theory it is based on the idea that people do things (or don't) based on their perceived self-interest.  This is based, in turn, on the idea that people make rational decisions about what they do.  I raised some objections to this theory: firstly, that it presumes rational behavior (which we know is uncommon) and second that it isn't actually a theory because it cannot be disproved (exchange theory is not falsifiable).  It also relies heavily on an economic view of human behavior, and is fundamentally un-sociological (not that being un-sociological is an argument against it, by itself).

Thirteenth Meeting (3/5/08):

This class sat for the first midterm exam, which I expect (hope!) to return on Monday, when we will begin discussing exchange theory.

Twelfth Meeting (3/3/08):

This class meeting was devoted to "review" - questions and answers about the material covered so far, material that will be fair game for the exam on Wednesday. 

The exam will have an "identifications" format: students will have to select about 3/4 of the terms or concepts on the exam, and for each one explain the meaning and theoretical significance of the term or concept (without quoting or parroting any of the readings) and supply a new example to illustrate not just how the term or concept might be applied, but that also demonstrates solid comprehension of the term or concept and its use.

Eleventh Meeting (2/27/08):

Today we talked about critical theorists - specifically Horkheimer and Marcuse - and how their ideas relate to those of Weber, Marx and "liberal capitalism."  Learie discussed Marcuse's ideas about the role of mass culture as mass domination and mass conformity - again a very dehumanizing view of modernity.  We also talked about the upcoming midterm exam and what kind of format would best measure learning...

We talked about the ways in which Horkheimer argues that although early liberalism (by which he means classical liberal economics - free enterprise) seemed to free the individual to accomplish and achieve as an individual, modern corporate capitalism enforces a depressing and dehumanizing kind of control over individuals who believe in its functions, even as it oppresses them.  Science, which has given us so many material benefits, has - in its underlying ideology - ideas about efficiency that dehumanize the "individual" in each of us.  We talked, as well, about the ways in which our own ideas about our capacities might be influenced by mass culture ("industrial culture")  in terms of how we spend our leisure time - what happens to us when we develop (or accept) materialistic goals - and what we accept as "art" these days (often corporate product rather than an expression of human thought or emotion).  We talked about movies ranging from Pirates of the Caribbean to Fight Club to Once.

Tenth Meeting (2/20/08):

We talked about the overall view that critical theorists have taken about the pressing issues of their (our?) time.  Specifically, we looked at the role of technology in everyday life.

What are we doing when we use cellular telephones?  This speaks not only to the impact of supposedly beneficial technology on our lives, but also to what Merton called manifest and latent functions.  We know all the manifest functions of cell phones, but what are the latent functions?  What results from our pervasive use of this kind of technology?

Eighth Meeting (2/18/08):

Today's discussion delved more deeply into Parsons's theories - systems and pattern variables, and there seemed to be a general consensus that his cheme was too cumbersome and unnecessarily involved.  We also discussed Merton's ideas and the conservative nature of Parsons's ideas about gender and family.

Seventh Meeting (2/13/08):

We talked about the general overview of structural functionalism fro Chapter 2, as well as some of the specific contributions that Talcott Parsons has made to sociology.  I talked about the way we often take for granted the concepts that Parsons elucidated.  We also discussed the kinds of issues that Parsons tackled (mostly the traditional/modern divide, after Tönnies).

Parsons was responsible for introducing many of the workaday ideas in sociology: socialization, norms, status, values, ascribed and achieved qualities, etc.  These have become so basic to sociology, that we often act is if they are simply "natural" - but Parsons developed them and that is why we have them ready to use whenever we need them.  This highlights the idea that contemporary theory is very important for our sense of what sociology is and how its basic premises work.

Sixth Meeting (2/11/08):

Nathaniel Aviles presented the du Bois reading, after which we had a more general discussion about race, "the other," different categories of "otherness" (gender, ethnicity and class) and how du Bois's social psychological ideas about identity related (or didn't) to classical theories.

We talked about where our ideas about race originate, how we discern race in others, and how knowing (or finding out) another person's racial status can change attitudes and behaviors.  Some people from earlier generations (Hispanic grandmothers, for example) have "traditional" ideas about appropriate kinds of people for marriage into one's family.  The idea of "double consciousness" seemed to be rather American (and a result of the modern condition), in which there is an expectation that any particular person could be more than just one thing - fit into more than just one category: American, Black, man, etc. I argued that race is socially constructed, and therefore a product of more than one person's attitude (and certainly not the result of biology).  We talked a bit about the "one drop rule," as well. I used the example of the old stereotypes of the Irish, held by the English - and how 100 years ago the Irish, the Italians, the Jews - anyone who wasn't a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) was considered black (non-white).  In all these cases - including our own individual realizations that we each have a race - it is from the outside that we receive inputs, we learn, about our racial status.  Race is defined for each individual by the society in which s/he lives.

Fifth Meeting (2/6/08):

I collected the smattering of reader responses to Weber's "Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism."  I talked about what I saw as the interesting points in the reading, notably the relationship between religion's formal (manifest) role as spiritual guide and moral compass and the economic role that Weber identifies. 

We talked about the idea of "tithing" to a church - and the kinds of things that members of a sect receive for their tithe.  I mentioned the idea of voluntarism, and its role among protestant churches - the idea that one could choose one's church, rather than simply be born into it.  The idea that membership in one of the sects Weber discussed depended not on knowledge of scripture, but on the kinds of qualities that would make a good business reputation: payment of debts, lack of haggling, charging only reasonable interest, avoiding luxuries, etc. Weber's research here (which is fundamentally historical, and which delves into seemingly arcane aspects of European religions) continues to address what he saw as the main issue facing society: capitalism.

Fourth Meeting (2/4/08):

Today's discussion continued to deal with Durkheim's ideas, particularly to the extent that he was responding to the issues that he perceived to be central to his time - in that sense he was, of course, a "contemporary theorist" of the late 19th century.  Durkheim concerned himself with forces and institutions that would bind together society during the enormous changes during rapid industrialization, particularly the declining influence of the church and other older forms of social organization. 

We contrasted his ideas about the motive force behind social change (deviance, slow evolution) and stability (institutions, interdependence) with those of Karl Marx.  Durkheim did not consider power as part of his scheme for understanding organic solidarity, looking at the "health" of the whole society rather than the welfare of any subgroup.  Durkheim saw interests creating interdependence, while Marx saw interests creating greater divisions.  We also discussed the inherently conservative nature of structural functionalism - its attempt to keep things "as they are."  I mentioned that there sometimes appears to be a real fear of any change that isn't slow or incremental in Durkheim's work.

Third Meeting (1/30/08):

Today we talked a bit about current situations, as well we how things were about 150 years go when Marx and Durkheim were writing about social theory.  One of the main ideas was to realize the extent to which sociology is s response to particular historical events and trends: sociologists try to respond to the "big" questions of the particular time in which they live.  Having collected the second "reader response," I asked students to complete another "retroactive" reader-response assignment for Monday.  I also circulated the sign-up sheet for presentations.

I recapped the long history of major social trends, from the fall of Rome into feudalism to the Renaissance and Reformation and on into the industrial revolution.  Just as today's major issues (things like changing economies, global warming, new plagues and health issues, international terrorism, war, etc.) can be seen as part of a major transformation (e.g. "globalization"), earlier important thinkers like Marx and Durkheim focused their theories on the major transformation that they witnessed - from agrarian life to urban industrialization.  Marx's theories were based on the ways in which history shaped society - and the ultimate outcomes of that history (social revolution: "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!").  He theorized that the nature and mechanisms of capitalism (previously elaborated in 1776 by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations) would inexorably lead to a division into two main classes - the proletariat (workers) and the bourgeoisie (owners); when the proletariat achieve class consciousness they will overthrow the capitalist system.  We also talked about Marx's idea of the role of religion.   Durkheim examined the same issues, but saw things differently (but still very sociologically): he saw the changes in society as the result of changing institutions, and the power of institutions to influence and shape the lives of individuals.  Where Marx theorized conflict, Durkheim theorized interdependence and stability.  We also talked a bit about the dominant metaphor for structural functionalism - society as a healthy body, but barely had time to mention inorganic (mechanical) and organic solidarity.

Second Meeting (1/28/08):

Today I talked about the historical and cultural background that led up to the Enlightenment period in Western Civilization.  I gave students a kind of "retroactive" reader-response assignment.

From ancient Greece and Rome, through the feudalism of the "dark ages" after the breakdown of Roman hegemony, to the renaissance, the reformation and finally the Enlightenment.   The interconnectedness that the Roman Empire had enabled in classical Europe collapsed with the fall of the Western Roman Empire (sacked in 456 AD).  I made the analogy to what might happen on Long Island (including Brooklyn and Queens), if we lost the connections that supply us with basics like food, water and energy.  The feudal world was, by its nature, isolated an hierarchical - laws were made by Lords of the Manor, and their authority derived from the dual powers of wealth (manifested by military might) and ecclesiastic support - the "divine right of kings." I talked a bit about John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau - and their theories about the relationships among the individual, nature and the state. Next class we will continue to follow the historical development of ideas that culminated in sociology. 

First Meeting (1/23/08):

Today I distributed the syllabus, talked about the requirements for the course, urged students to buy the required text, and described the first assignments.

I talked a bit about the relationship between classical and contemporary theory (using a rather lame analogy about classical and contemporary music), as well as whether (or how or to what extent) "classical" theorists like Karl Marx are still relevant - and how our lives have changed from the way average people lived their lives when Marx, Durkheim and Weber lived and wrote.  We also talked a bit about the nature of enlightenment thinking (examples about household plumbing, electrical wiring and current economic issues).