Sociology

[GPDP]

I'm minoring in this subject, and I would love to learn more about leftist and socialist perspectives in this social science, especially in regards to social inequality (again, a course I am taking this semester).

I know one of the main schools of thought in sociology is that of "conflict theory", which is pretty much borne out of Marxism. I also know of "structural functionalism", which, to me, reeks of bourgeois ideas of a non-existent "meritocracy".

However, I've recently come across critical theory and post-modernism, and I am interested in knowing what those schools of thought have to say in regards to the previous "modern" theories.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm a sociology major in uni, and AFAIK critical theory takes Marxian "conflict theory" farther. It is fairly Eurocentric and Western-focused, however.

What critical theory does is assumes that modern society has changed drastically from Marx's time, and that we cannot only look at labour/work as the center of people's lives and social control; technology and culture has a great controlling effect on us as well. For example, technologies that are meant to increase our productivity control and direct our lives - we are "slaves" to our cellphones, blackberries, computers, etc instead of us controlling technology.

Also, Chomsky and Herman's "Propaganda Model" of media analysis can be seen as part of "critical theory." Ruling class hegemony can be transferred through our media sources, and not just through more overt means such as laws.


This is a very brief summation of critical theory - I'm just rattling off what I can remember.


Post-modernism and critical theory are similar in that they look back on modernism and critically analyze it, as well as our present.

[Circle E Society]

Just switched out of my sociology major depending upon what school you go to it can take several approaches either criminal justice or radical in my experience.

[ckaihatsu]

I've always been a fan of sociology ever since I was in my first year at college -- I liked the idea that we could take the whole of society and make sense of it, no matter how big it seemed.

I was a Sociology with History major then, and I still find aspects of the field fascinating, including revolutionary politics, obviously. Quick recommendation: Hochschild's _The Managed Heart_ is an excellent study of the role of * emotional * work in today's heavily service-sector-oriented economy.

I've made a few of my own contributions, informally, by putting some graphics together -- please feel free to take a look:


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______

http://tinyurl.com/2c252w


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics

http://tinyurl.com/32qsdb


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 1 of 2)

http://tinyurl.com/275drt


Ideologies & Operations -- Dynamics (Page 2 of 2)

http://tinyurl.com/2vd8dg


History, Macro-Micro

http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr


culture and critique framework (rendered)

http://tinyurl.com/bdxge2


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Rawthentic]

I am also a sociology major at my university.

In my opinion (and it isn't something I have elaborated on), I think that Marxism can be the "true" sociology, in that, applied critically and dynamically, provides the deepest penetration of society possible.

Not that conflict theory or functionalism dont bring truths into the picture, but they are not as sweeping or deep as marxism can be.

Also, conflict theory is not a new theory that takes into account new things that marxism has ignored. That makes the assumption that marxism is a dogma or set of verdicts that have been exhausted rather than a scientific methodology. In fact, I find conflict theory to be annoying because of his it highlights many aspects of capitalist exploitation yet can't and doesn't dig into how the system itself (and imperialism around the world) creates this.

[Invincible Summer]

In fact, I find conflict theory to be annoying because of his it highlights many aspects of capitalist exploitation yet can't and doesn't dig into how the system itself (and imperialism around the world) creates this.

That's why I find it annoying that most of my profs announce that they're "leftists" and get me all excited, but always end up recommend social democratic solutions to things.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll never forget the soc. professor who, after covering an overview of conflict theory and cooperation theory, then looked directly at us with the trite pointedness of a Morpheus wannabe and asked, "Which one are you?"

[GPDP]

That's might be due to the influence of post-modernism in academia. From what I've encountered, post-modernists are not advocates of revolution, but instead propose "pockets of resistance" to oppression. Yeah, that's gonna fix the system. :rolleyes: They do consider themselves leftists, but not in the traditional class-struggle kind of way, but in a sort of post-leftist "let's identify all the ways in which we are all oppressed, not just by virtue of class, but gender, sexual preference, race, etc." While all of those are important and should always be taken into account, to me it just gets too... I dunno, too much into identity politics. Too much reformism.

Of course, my experience in the field is still limited, so I may just be overgeneralizing based on my experiences on campus, but that's how I feel so far.

[Invincible Summer]

That's might be due to the influence of post-modernism in academia. From what I've encountered, post-modernists are not advocates of revolution, but instead propose "pockets of resistance" to oppression. Yeah, that's gonna fix the system. :rolleyes: They do consider themselves leftists, but not in the traditional class-struggle kind of way, but in a sort of post-leftist "let's identify all the ways in which we are all oppressed, not just by virtue of class, but gender, sexual preference, race, etc." While all of those are important and should always be taken into account, to me it just gets too... I dunno, too much into identity politics. Too much reformism.

Of course, my experience in the field is still limited, so I may just be overgeneralizing based on my experiences on campus, but that's how I feel so far.

Precisely. I was just too lazy to state it that eloquently.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm a history major minoring in sociology and psychology and from the little sociology classes I have taken I must say it's a pretty interesting topic. Now I wonder, if I do get into/have to get into/be able to get into grad school, should I continue grad studies in history or in sociology... (Although it's too soon to tell, still have 3 years).

[Pogue]

Marxism is a conflict theory.

I'm doing Sociology at A level, its my favourite subject.

[Pogue]

That's why I find it annoying that most of my profs announce that they're "leftists" and get me all excited, but always end up recommend social democratic solutions to things.

Lol, they're not that bad.

[Invincible Summer]

Lol, they're not that bad.

Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit.

But the thing is, they'll tease by saying stuff like "Drug addiction is caused by free-market, capitalist society dislocating and alienating individuals. Rehab, safe-injection sites, policing: these are all band-aid solutions... to the larger problem of social alienation"

then the deal-killer:

"...the solution is clearly to bring back the welfare state to install more social programs to help individuals become more socially integrated"

and I'm like :mad:

[GPDP]

Haha, I know exactly what you mean. I have professors that say shit like that all the time. Even my foreign policy professor, who's a fierce critic of capitalism and will let you know about it in no uncertain terms, will often talk about reformist means to abolish capitalism, though he has talked about revolution at times. He also looks up to Franklin Roosevelt as the best president in US history, though he does criticize him for making sure that anti-capitalist sentiments in the 30's never took off.

[Invincible Summer]

I sound like a whiner, but sociology is actually quite interesting and eye-opening. I think they should begin teaching mandatory sociology classes in late high school so kids will grow up with a more critical understanding of the world.

[Pogue]

Its a great subject, but the research methods section is as boring as shit. I think its a subject its hard to understand and still be right wing in.

[Invincible Summer]

Its a great subject, but the research methods section is as boring as shit. I think its a subject its hard to understand and still be right wing in.

Research methods... oh fuck.

I still have to get through that section of my B.A. degree. It's terrible. I have to create a survey that's worth 45% of my mark...



But yeah, I don't know anyone who is blatantly right-wing and studies sociology. Although, looking at rational-choice theory (which is probably the more right-wing, individualist stream of theory in sociology), I can imagine someone being a proponent of it, although I haven't encountered anyone who mentions it except to explain micro-scale social relations.

[casper]

Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit.

But the thing is, they'll tease by saying stuff like "Drug addiction is caused by free-market, capitalist society dislocating and alienating individuals. Rehab, safe-injection sites, policing: these are all band-aid solutions... to the larger problem of social alienation"

then the deal-killer:

"...the solution is clearly to bring back the welfare state to install more social programs to help individuals become more socially integrated"

and I'm like :mad:
so basically their saying...the solution is more band-aids? The system itself needs to change, not spend more time in one of its particular forms. i can see your frustration.

[GPDP]

But yeah, I don't know anyone who is blatantly right-wing and studies sociology. Although, looking at rational-choice theory (which is probably the more right-wing, individualist stream of theory in sociology), I can imagine someone being a proponent of it, although I haven't encountered anyone who mentions it except to explain micro-scale social relations.

I dunno. Much of the functionalist paradigm to me sounds like a load of reactionary tripe.

[Pogue]

I dunno. Much of the functionalist paradigm to me sounds like a load of reactionary tripe.

Its more conservative than reactionary. Its basically the ideology of the conservative party.

[Hit The North]

Its more conservative than reactionary. Its basically the ideology of the conservative party.

More likely the ideology of New Labour.

[ckaihatsu]

All,

Thought I'd just piggyback on this thread and post a link to a sociological diagram that I developed the other day -- it's one page, feel free to check it out:


Worldview Diagram

http://tinyurl.com/acacs4

[Oneironaut]

But yeah, I don't know anyone who is blatantly right-wing and studies sociology. Although, looking at rational-choice theory (which is probably the more right-wing, individualist stream of theory in sociology), I can imagine someone being a proponent of it, although I haven't encountered anyone who mentions it except to explain micro-scale social relations.

I also am a sociology major and I have come across quite a few scumbags in the program. One chump's life goal was to become a member of the C.I.A. That is the dangerous thing about sociology, you can use it to analyze and expose class antagonism for society's benefit, or you can do exactly the opposite and join the C.I.A.

I personally enjoyed Research Methods. It puts the theories into a practical perspective that you can watch unfold as you conduct research.

I agree with Kasama here. Marxism offers us the most detailed sociological perspective. Marxism simply makes more sense than the supposedly "too complex" to understand argument.