Contemporary Sociological Theory Syllabus

by Professor Chris Hunter

Last Updated: August 26, 1998

Contemporary Sociological Theory
by Professor Chris Hunter
of the Grinnell College Sociology Department
Last Updated: November 1, 1998

Grinnell College
Sociology 285.01
Fall, 1998

Chris Hunter
Office: Carnegie 114
Science 0331
Time: 8:30-9:50 a.m. T/Th

I have two major goals for this course: first, for you to become conversant with the most important theories in contemporary sociology, and, second, for you to be able to analyze, use, and criticize those theories. Simply memorizing facts about theories is not sufficient. We need to read about them, talk about them, write about them, and use them; and thus we will become comfortable with them.

In order to help us achieve these goals, the course has two distinct, though related parts. In the first part of this course, we will focus on learning about the basic perspectives in sociology. Thus, we will discuss the early history of sociology and the development of sociological theory, and (more briefly) what a "theory" is, how we can "do" theory, how we might choose between competing theoretical perspectives, and what consequences these choices have on the development of sociology. Wallace and Wolf's basic text on sociological theory will provide us with a basic overview of sociological theory, including some historical background. Kivisto's anthology provides examples of how some of these theories can "illuminate" real social problems or issues.

In the second part of the course, we will focus more narrowly on specific theories and theorists. Pairs of you will chose a specific theorist on whom to specialize and will be responsible for leading class discussion on that theorists and his or her ideas. In the process, we will adopt a much more critical perspective on these theorists, since we need to determine how and to what extent their theories are really convincing. We will read Steven Seidman's Contested Knowledge, which provides a very personal, post-modernist perspective on contemporary sociological theory, as an example of one kind of critical stance we might adopt.

We will focus our attention particularly on contemporary theories and theorists, which means that we will attend to the "masters" less than we should for an adequate understanding of current theories. Given our one-semester format, we must rely in large part on secondary sources and some representative primary sources, but we will discuss original works from some of these theories. Both in papers and in class presentations, we will analyze central theoretical problems or themes which these applications or theoretical works illustrate.

Requirements:

Sociology 285 is not a lecture class. I will lecture where necessary to provide background information and context. However, much of our discussion in class will focus on issues which you raise, so you must come to each class prepared to discuss the topics covered in the assigned readings. Since the success of this seminar depends on active participation, the quality of your participation (including in the roles which I describe below) will determine 30% of your grade.

A useful technique that will help prepare you for these discussions is to take notes on the readings, focusing on what is said and on what you find unclear. Please bring to each class one written question for discussion; at each class meeting, I will ask some or all of you to write your questions on the board.

We will use some other techniques to facilitate careful reading and discussion. First, pairs of you will write one brief (one to two page) summary of part of a chapter from the Wallace and Wolf text. These synthesizing summaries, which you will email to the whole class, will help us focus our attention more efficiently on the most important ideas in these texts. I will grade these summaries.

Second, small groups of you (three or four people in each group) will meet outside of class at least three times in the first seven weeks of the semester to discuss the readings and theories. After these meetings, the group will send an email to the rest of the class (including me) commenting on the readings. I encourage everyone to respond to these commentaries, as I will. These commentaries will contribute to your class participation grade.

Third, each group will, in addition, act as a resource team for one of the "additional readings"; as a resource team, you all will have studied this selection with particular care and be ready to help us understand it. I encourage you to produce outlines, or diagrams, or definitions of key terms, or anything else that might help everyone understand the reading and the theory it illustrates.

Finally, pairs of you will act as presenters on your "own" theorist during the second half of the semester.

We will have no examinations. Instead, you will write three short papers (two to three pages each) which will focus on particular aspects of the theories and which will count a total of 40% of your grade. I have listed eight sets of paper topics (below), so you have considerable choice. I encourage you to rewrite any of these papers, but you must discuss the paper with me before doing the rewrite. You will benefit most from doing a rewrite if you get to it soon after the first try, so I will set a deadline for rewrites of two weeks after the original paper was submitted.

I strongly recommend that you plan now which papers you will do. Read over the paper topics right away; skim the table of contents in Wallace and Wolf and in Seidman. Doing so will help you decide which theoretical approaches sound most interesting or appealing and thus help you decide which papers you might prefer to write.

Finally, you will write a long analytic final paper (fifteen to twenty pages) in which, on the basis of reading in original and secondary sources, you will argue for the superiority of one of the perspectives. This longer paper will count 30% of your grade. A proposal for this paper is due on Oct. 29; a polished draft of the paper will be due Dec. 1. You will read and comment on two other drafts and receive comments on your own paper from two other members of the class so that everyone can write the best possible final paper. A mandatory rewrite of this final paper will be due during exam week (Tuesday, Dec. 15). I will provide written comments on the draft version and grade only the final version.

Week 0: 8/27

Introduction

AN APPRECIATIVE FIRST LOOK AT THE MAJOR SCHOOLS

Week 1: 9/1 -- Introduction

• Wallace 1:1-15
• Kivisto 1-6; 145-150

Week 1: 9/3 -- Functionalism: Durkheim & Parsons

• Wallace 2:16-53
• Kivisto 3:63-106

Week 2: 9/8 -- Functionalism: Merton

• Wallace 2:54-73
• Gans, "The positive functions of poverty." AJS 78(1972):275-289

Week 2: 9/10 -- Conflict Theory: Marx

• Wallace 3:75-111
• Kivisto 4:107-144

Week 3: 9/15 -- Critical Conflict Theory: Habermas

• Wallace 3:111-141
• Kivisto 5:151-182

Week 3: 9/17 -- Conflict Theory: Weber, Dahrendorf, & Collins

• Wallace 3:142-180
• Kivisto 2:37-62

Week 4: 9/22 -- Symbolic Interactionism: Mead & Blumer

• Wallace 4:181-217
• Kivisto 7:207-234

Week 4: 9/24 -- Symbolic Interactionism: Goffman & more

• Wallace 4:218-239
• Kivisto 8:235-260

Week 5: 9/29 -- Phenomenology: Garfinkel

• Wallace 5:240-261
• West/Zimmerman, "Doing gender." Gender & Society 1(1987):125-151

Week 5: 10/1 -- Phenomenology: Berger & Smith

• Wallace 5:262-277
• Longino, "Feminist standpoint theory and the problem of knowledge." Signs 19(1993):201-212

Week 6: 10/6 -- Rational Choice: Homans & Coleman

• Wallace 6:278-317
• Paternoster/Simpson, "A rational choice theory of corporate crime." Pp. 37-58 in Clarke/Felson, Routine Activity and Rational Choice (1993).

Week 6: 10/8 -- Rational Choice: Blau

• Wallace 6:318-342
• Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life (1968) 76-87
• Uehara, "Dual exchange theory, social networks, and informal social support." AJS 96(1990):521-557

Week 7: 10/13 -- Structuralism

• Wallace 7:344-364
• Blau, "A fable about social structure." Social Forces 58(1980):777-788

Week 7: 10/15 -- Structuration, the Body, & Sociobiology

• Wallace 7:365-395
• Kivisto 6:183-206

10/16- 10/26 -- FALL BREAK

Week 8: 10/27 -- CRITICAL REAPPRAISALS AND MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES

• Wallace 8:396-409
• Seidman 1-15

The schedule for the remainder of the course will depend on your choices of theorists or theories. We will read Seidman's personal appraisal of sociological theories as part of those discussions, but not necessarily in this way.

10/29

PROPOSAL FOR FINAL PAPER DUE

Presenters:

Week 8: 10/29 -- Grand Visions

• Seidman 19-53

Week 9: 11/3 -- The Promise

• Seidman 2:54-89

Week 9: 11/5 -- An American Sociology

• Seidman 3:93-119

Week 10: 11/10 -- Triumph of Scientific Sociology

• Seidman 4:121-154

Week 10: 11/12 -- Critical Theories

• Seidman 5:159-193

Week 11: 11/17

""

""

Week 11: 11/19 -- French Poststructuralists

• Seidman 6:194-233

Week 12: 11/24

""

""

Week 12: 11/26 -- Thanksgiving Break

Week 13: 12/1 -- New Social Movements

• Seidman 7:234-280

12/1

POLISHED DRAFT OF FINAL PAPER DUE

Week 13: 12/3

""

""

Week 14: 12/8 -- Refashioning Sociology

• Seidman 8:281-327

Week 14: 12/10 --Conclusions

12/15

REWRITE OF FINAL PAPER DUE

In the second part of the course, everyone will select a theorist (or perhaps a theoretical approach) for special attention. Working in pairs, you will read additional material, both original and secondary/critical, and prepare a presentation for the class in which you help us understand how the social context helped mold the theory, what the theorist's contributions are, what the theory's strengths and weaknesses are, and what you believe to be the future of the theory. You should pick from among the following theorists (most of whom are mentioned in Wallace/Wolf or in Seidman), or from another theorist in one of these traditions. We should try to "cover" a wide range of perspectives/theories, so we may need to negotiate about which theorists/theories each team will discuss.

• Functionalism
• Durkheim, Emile
• Parsons, Talcott
• Merton, Robert
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Mead, George H.
• Blumer, Herbert
• Goffman, Erving
• Hochschild, Arlie
• Rational Choice
• Homans, George
• Coleman, James
• Hechter, Michael
• Blau, Peter
• Conflict Theory
• Marx, Karl
• Weber, Marx
• Collins, Randall
• Milkman, Ruth
• Burawoy, Michael
• Phenomenology
• Garfinkel, Harold
• Berger, Peter
• Smith, Dorothy E.
• West, Candace
• Network Theory
• Emerson, R.
• Cook, Karen
• Ridgeway, Cecilia
• Critical Theory
• Mills, C. Wright
• Habermas, Jƒrgen
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Feminist Theory
• Connell, R. W.
• Collins, Patricia Hill
• Lorber, Judith
• Structuralism
• Blau, Peter
• Smith-Lovin, Lynne & J. Miller McPherson
• World System Theory
• Wallerstein, Immanuel
• Ward, Kathryn
• Poststructuralism
• Foucault, Michel
• Weeks, Jeffrey
• Structuration Theory
• Giddens, Anthony

I have placed on Burling Reserve the following texts which you might examine as you consider what questions to raise about each perspective or theory and as you evaluate the work of your particular theorist.

Collins, Randall. Theoretical Sociology (1988).

Collins, Randall. Four Sociological Traditions (1994).

England, Paula (ed). Theory on Gender/ Feminism on Theory (1993).

Hage, Gerald (ed). Formal Theory in Sociology: Opportunity or Pitfall? (1994).

Turner, J. & Beeghley. The Emergence of Sociological Theory (1982).

Turner, Jonathan. The Structure of Sociological Theory (1991).

The following books could also be useful, but I haven't placed them on reserve:

Bourdieu, Pierre. Sociology in Question (1993).

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1991).

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (1991).

Connell, R.W. Masculinities (1995).

Fraser, Nancy. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (1989).

Lemert, Charles (ed). Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings (1993).

Ollenburger, Jane & H. Moore. A Sociology of Women: The Intersection of Patriarchy, Capitalism, & Colonialism (1992).

Ritzer, George. Contemporary Sociological Theory (1992).

Turner, Jonathan. A Theory of Social Interaction (1988).

Walby, Sylvia. Theorizing Patriarchy (1990).

===============================================

CHOICE ESSAYS:

On the next pages are eight sets of possible "little" paper topics. Remember that you are responsible for writing a total of three papers on specific theoretical perspectives during the first 7 weeks of the semester. I suggest that you pick on questions which relate to the theory you expect to defend in the final paper and two other theories, especially those about which you feel less secure. Since the final paper calls for a defense of your "preferred" theoretical perspective in light of its strongest competitors, you should consider doing "little" papers on those competitors. If you have an intense desire to deal with an issue not covered by the questions I have written, you may write a question akin to these, obtain my approval, and write that paper instead.

Each of these little papers must be submitted by the Thursday of the week in which the material is discussed, so plan carefully. If you have any question about when a given paper is due, please talk to me.

Please write concisely, clearly, and correctly. Cite sources whenever you quote, paraphrase, or otherwise use someone else's ideas. When in doubt about the need to cite a source, the best option is to cite one. Write no more than three typed pages for each paper.

==============================================

Week 1: Functionalism

1. Miriam Johnson argues (in England) that functionalism is not inherently conservative or sexist. Are you convinced?

2. Apply Parson's AGIL (or LIGA) scheme to a real social unit, like the college and its parts. Demonstrate how each function is fulfilled for the whole social unit and then re-apply the AGIL scheme to one of the parts. Analyze the ways in which this mode of analysis is useful and the ways in which it is not.

==============================================

Week 2: Functionalism

1. Robert Merton (pp. 73-138 in On Theoretical Sociology) introduces a number of ideas to strengthen "traditional" functional analyses: manifest and latent functions; eufunctions, dysfunctions, and nonfunctions; net balance of consequences; functional/structural alternatives; and attention to social change and disequilibrium. Evaluate Merton's "paradigm for functional analysis" in light of the general problems of functionalism.

2. Gans argues that poverty serves a number of social purposes. Does Gans's analysis follow the guidelines of Merton's version of functional analysis? Is his analysis conservative or radical in its implications?

==============================================

Week 2: Conflict Theory

1. Consider the following two passages from Marx. Do these two passages support the contention that Marx is an "economic determinist"? Explain.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

1. In what ways does Ruth Milkman's discussion of "women's work" during World War II reflect neo-Marxist and feminist concerns? [Milkman, Ruth. "Redefining 'women's work': the sexual division of labor in the auto industry during World War II." Feminist Studies 8(1982):337-366]

==============================================

Week 3: More Conflict Theory

1. Examine Lewis Coser's The Functions of Social Conflict. Is Coser more of a functionalist or more of a conflict theorist in this discussion? Defend your choice with analysis of specific statements from the text. You don't have to read the whole text.

2. Choose a specific issue on which the functionalists and a particular conflict theorist differ and evaluate how, and how well, their positions might be reconciled. Be specific.

3. Apply Randall Collins's theory of "interaction ritual chains" to a specific social case and analyze its shortcomings and strengths. [Collins, Randall. 1988. Theoretical Sociology 3:203-236]

4. What does a "world system" perspective (i.e., that of Immanuel Wallerstein) add to classical Marxism?

5. What does Kathryn Ward (in England) find wanting in "traditional" world system theory? Can world system theory be saved? How?

==============================================

Week 4: Interactionism

1. In chapter one of The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Erving Goffman discusses everyday performances in which we try to present ourselves as particular kinds of people while we enact routines. In the process, Goffman describes various dilemmas or problems. Does Goffman see these dilemmas and problems as unavoidable?

2. In chapter six of The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Goffman discusses dramaturgical loyalty, discipline, and circumspection in terms of face-to-face interaction. How could these same ideas help illuminate the problems facing an author as she or he considers how to write a paper? Explain.

==============================================

Week 5: Phenomenology

1. Symbolic interactionists and ethnomethodologists both emphasize the interpretive process in everyday life. But the two approaches differ. Are symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology contradictory or compatible? Explain.

2. West and Fenstermaker (in England) claim that "persons engaged in virtually any activity can hold themselves accountable and be held accountable for their performance of that activity as women or as men" (157). If "doing gender" (West and Zimmerman) is thus unavoidable, can we ever change gender prescriptions?

3. Discuss a common social situation, first as a symbolic interactionist and second as an ethnomethodologist. Discuss the theoretical and empirical significance of these differing interpretations. Be specific and clear.

4. What is your own preference on the standpoint argument (see Longino's article)? What aspects of your position make it best for doing sociology?

For to claim that there is a distinctive women's 'perspective' that is 'privileged' precisely because it possess heightened insights into the nature of reality, a superior access to truth, is to suggest that there is some uniform experience common to all women that generates this univocal vision. (Hawkesworth. 545) [Hawksworth. "Knowers, knowing, known: feminist theory and claims of truth." Signs 14(1989): 533-557]

This 'standpoint' argument has been expanded to assert that gender intersects with class and ethnicity to create unique sets of experiences, giving rise to the development of distinctive perspectives. (Sprague & Zimmerman 258, in England)

==============================================

Week 6: Rational Choice

1. Can you identify any behaviors or social relationships to which the principles of exchange theory do not apply? Explain why "exchange" does not apply and try to formulate the criteria for distinguishing which social relationships are subject to exchange theory. (Alternatively, if you think that all social relations are subject to exchange principles, choose a social relationship that others might believe is an exception and explain why they are wrong. Be specific.)

2. "Exchange" normally signifies a noncoercive relationship in which entities trade items of approximately equal value. Is this how "exchange" is used by Blau (in Exchange and Power in Social Life)? Does Blau's approach permit treatment of "unequal exchanges"? How?

==============================================

Week 7: Structuralism

1. Apply Peter Blau's macrostructuralism to social relations at Grinnell College, making explicit use of specific propositions found in Inequality and Heterogeneity (1977) and/or Blau's "fable about social structure."

2. Evaluate the claim that exchange and network theories can be integrated, using Uehara's discussion of social support as a model.

3. Do rational choice theory and network theories "bridge the micro-macro gap" or "resolve the agency-structure dilemma"? Consider explicitly the articles by Friedman & Diem and by Smith-Lovin & McPherson (both in England).

==============================================

REQUIRED FINAL ESSAY:

due during final two weeks of classes

The final paper (15 to 18 pages) represents your attempt to convince us that one of the theoretical perspectives we have studied this semester is better than the others. To do so, you must accomplish the following:

* Select three or four criteria which will permit you to evaluate these perspectives and explain how these criteria provide "objective" standards (that is, standards we all might accept) for judging the relative adequacy of the perspectives.

* Select three theories or theoretical perspectives to evaluate and explain why those three ought to be compared. You may select either a specific version of a perspective (e.g., Merton's version of functionalism or Ward's reconceptualization of world system theory) or some reasonable amalgam that includes the basic features of the perspective (e.g., Ridgeway's depiction of expectation states theory). By October 29, prepare a two-page proposal for the final paper in which you outline the criteria and the perspectives you have chosen and explain why they are reasonable choices.

* Apply the criteria to those three perspectives and explain clearly and convincingly why one of the perspectives emerges as superior. [If you wish, you may also indicate explicitly how two of those perspectives (or all three) could be combined into a synthesis which would be stronger than any one perspective alone.]

* Write a one-page precis of your essay, noting the important points of your argument. Email to class.

* Remember, as you write this essay, that others in the course will read your paper and get a chance to critique it. Note that I will not put a grade per se on the draft: I will write comments designed to help you improve the paper. The final, rewritten version of the essay should take advantage of all those comments.

* Author: Provide 3 copies of the polished draft of your paper by Dec 1. Put an electronic copy on the "Shared" folder in my folder on the Social_Studies STORAGESERVER and give a printed copy to me and one to each of your two readers. Email a one-page precis to each member of the class and to me.

* Readers: Read the paper carefully, making whatever stylistic or grammatical suggestions you feel comfortable making, but focus your comments mostly on the substantive arguments made. The goal of each paper is to be convincing: is this paper convincing? Email your comments to the author and to me.

* Other class members: Skim the email precis of each paper. Pay particular attention to those papers which raise questions especially relevant to your own. Talk to any authors whose arguments appeal to you or bother you.

* Author: The final really, really good version of the paper is due on Dec. 15, during exam week. Please place an electronic version on my STORAGESERVER account and give me a paper copy.

Send questions and comments to the Department Chair, Professor Chris Hunter, at hunter@grinnell.edu.

Web pages maintained by warpehos@grinnell.edu
Last modified: December 13, 1999