A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Early Years

Chapter 1 Chapter Summary

Classical sociological theories are theories of great scope and ambition that either were
created in Europe between the early 1800s and the early 1900s or have their roots in
the culture of that period. The work of such classical sociological theorists as Auguste
Comte,Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Georg
Simmel, andVilfredo Pareto was important in its time and played a central role in the
subsequent development of sociology. Additionally, the ideas of these theorists
continue to be relevant to sociological theory today, because contemporary sociologists
read them. They have become classics because they have a wide range of application
and deal with centrally important social issues.
This chapter supplies the context within which the works of the theorists presented in
detail in later chapters can be understood. It also offers a sense of the historical forces
that gave shape to sociological theory and their later impact. While it is difficult to say
with precision when sociological theory began, we begin to find thinkers who can clearly
be identified as sociologists by the early 1800s.
Social Forces in the Development of Sociological Theory
The social conditions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were of the
utmost significance to the development of sociology.
The chaos and social disorder that resulted from the series of political revolutions
ushered in by the French Revolution in 1789 disturbed many early social theorists.
While they recognized that a return to the old order was impossible, they sought to find
new sources of order in societies that had been traumatized by dramatic political
changes.
The Industrial Revolution was a set of developments that transformed Western
societies from largely agricultural to overwhelmingly industrial systems. Peasants left
agricultural work for industrial occupations in factories. Within this new system, a few
profited greatly while the majority worked long hours for low wages. A reaction against
the industrial system and capitalism led to the labor movement and other radical
movements dedicated to overthrowing the capitalist system. As a result of the
Industrial Revolution, large numbers of people moved to urban settings. The expansion
of cities produced a long list of urban problems that attracted the attention of early
sociologists.
Socialism emerged as an alternative vision of a worker's paradise in which wealth was
equitably distributed. Karl Marx was highly critical of capitalist society in his writings
and engaged in political activities to help engineer its fall. Other early theorists
recognized the problems of capitalist society but sought change through reform
because they feared socialism more than they feared capitalism.
Feminists were especially active during the French and American Revolutions, during
the abolitionist movements and political rights mobilizations of the mid-nineteenth
century, and especially during the Progressive Era in the United States. But feminist
concerns filtered into early sociology only on the margins. In spite of their marginal
status, early women sociologists like Harriet Martineau and Marianne Weber wrote a
significant body of theory that is being rediscovered today.
All of these changes had a profound effect on religiosity. Many sociologists came from
religious backgrounds and sought to understand the place of religion and morality in
modern society.
Throughout this period, the technological products of science were permeating every
sector of life, and science was acquiring enormous prestige. An ongoing debate
developed between sociologists who sought to model their discipline after the hard
sciences and those who thought the distinctive characteristics of social life made a
scientific sociology problematic and unwise.
Intellectual Forces and the Rise of Sociological Theory
The Enlightenment was a period of intellectual development and change in philosophical
thought beginning in the eighteenth century. Enlightenment thinkers sought to combine
reason with empirical research on the model of Newtonian science. They tried to
produce highly systematic bodies of thought that made rational sense and that could be
derived from real-world observation. Convinced that the world could be comprehended
and controlled using reason and research, they believed traditional social values and
institutions to be irrational and inhibitive of human development. Their ideas conflicted
with traditional religious bodies like the Catholic Church, the political regimes of
Europe's absolutist monarchies, and the social system of feudalism. They placed their
faith instead in the power of the individual's capacity to reason. Early sociology also
maintained a faith in empiricism and rational inquiry.
A conservative reaction to the Enlightenment, characterized by a strong anti-modern
sentiment, also influenced early theorists. The conservative reaction led thinkers to
emphasize that society had an existence of its own, in contrast to the individualism of
the Enlightenment. Additionally, they had a cautious approach to social change and a
tendency to see modern developments like industrialization, urbanization, and
bureaucratization as having disorganizing effects.
The Development of French Sociology
Claude Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825) was a positivist who believed that the
study of social phenomena should employ the same scientific techniques as the natural
sciences. But he also saw the need for socialist reforms, especially centralized planning
of the economic system.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) coined the term "sociology." Like Saint-Simon, he
believed the study of social phenomena should employ scientific techniques. But Comte
was disturbed by the chaos of French society and was critical of the Enlightenment and
the French Revolution. Comte developed an evolutionary theory of social change in his
law of the three stages. He argued that social disorder was caused by ideas left over
from the idea systems of earlier stages. Only when a scientific footing for the governing
of society was established would the social upheavals of his time cease. Comte also
stressed the systematic character of society and accorded great importance to the role
of consensus. These beliefs made Comte a forerunner of positivism and reformism in
classical sociological theory.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) legitimized sociology in France and became a
dominant force in the development of the discipline worldwide. Although he was
politically liberal, he took a more conservative position intellectually, arguing that the
social disorders produced by striking social changes could be reduced through social
reform. Durkheim argued that sociology was the study of structures that are external
to, and coercive over, the individual; for example, legal codes and shared moral beliefs,
which he called social facts. In Suicide he made his case for the importance of sociology
by demonstrating that social facts could cause individual behavior. He argued that
societies were held together by a strongly held collective morality called the collective
conscience. Because of the complexity of modern societies, the collective conscience
had become weaker, resulting in a variety of social pathologies. In his later work,
Dukheim turned to the religion of primitive societies to demonstrate the importance of
the collective consciousness.
The Development of German Sociology
German sociology is rooted in the philosopher G.F.W. Hegel's (1770-1831) idea of
the dialectic. Like Comte in France, Hegel offered an evolutionary theory of society. The
dialectic is a view that the world is made up not of static structures but of processes,
relationships, conflicts, and contradictions. He emphasized the importance of changes
in consciousness for producing dialectical change. Dialectical thinking is a dynamic way
of thinking about the world.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) followed Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) in criticizing
Hegel for favoring abstract ideas over real people. Marx adopted a materialist
orientation that focused on real material entities like wealth and the state. He argued
that the problems of modern society could be traced to real material sources like the
structures of capitalism. Yet he maintained Hegel's emphasis on the dialectic, forging a
position called dialectical materialism that held that material processes, relationships,
conflicts, and contradictions are responsible for social problems and social change.
Marx's materialism led him to posit a labor theory of value, in which he argued that the
capitalist's profits were based on the exploitation of the laborer. Under the influence of
British political economists, Marx grew to deplore the exploitation of workers and the
horrors of the capitalist system. Unlike the political economists, his view was that such
problems were the products of an endemic conflict that could be addressed only
through radical change. While Marx did not consider himself to be a sociologist, his
influence has been strong in Europe. Until recently, American sociologists dismissed
Marx as an ideologist.
The theories of Max Weber (1864-1920) can be seen as the fruit of a long debate
with the ghost of Marx. While Weber was not familiar with Marx's writings, he viewed
the Marxists of his day as economic determinists who offered single-cause theories of
social life. Rather than seeing ideas as simple reflections of economic factors, Weber
saw them as autonomous forces capable of profoundly affecting the economic world.
Weber can also be understood as trying to round out Marx's theoretical perspective;
rather than denying the effect of material structures, he was simply pointing out the
importance of ideas as well.
Whereas Marx offered a theory of capitalism, Weber's work was fundamentally a theory
of the process of rationalization. Rationalization is the process whereby universally
applied rules, regulations, and laws come to dominate more and more sectors of
society on the model of a bureaucracy. Weber argued that in the Western world
rational-legal systems of authority squeezed out traditional authority systems, rooted in
beliefs, and charismatic authority, systems based on the extraordinary qualities of a
leader. His historical studies of religion are dedicated to showing why rational-legal
forms took hold in the West but not elsewhere. Weber's reformist views and academic
style were better received than Marx's radicalism in sociology. Sociologists also
appreciated Weber's well-rounded approach to the social world.
Georg Simmel (1858-1918) was Weber's contemporary and co-founder of the
German Sociological Society. While Marx and Weber were pre-occupied with large-scale
issues, Simmel was best known for his work on smaller-scale issues, especially
individual action and interaction. He became famous for his thinking on forms of
interaction (i.e., conflict) and types of interacts (i.e., the stranger). Simmel saw that
understanding interaction among people was one of the major tasks of sociology. His
short essays on interesting topics made his work accessible to American sociologists.
His most famous long work, The Philosophy of Money, was concerned with the
emergence of a money economy in the modern world. This work observed that large-
scale social structures like the money economy can become separate from individuals
and come to dominate them.
The Origins of British Sociology
British sociology was shaped in the nineteenth century by three conflicting sources:
political economy, ameliorism, and social evolution.
British sociologists saw the market economy as a positive force, a source of order,
harmony, and integration in society. The task of the sociologist was not to criticize
society but to gather data on the laws by which it operated. The goal was to provide
the government with the facts it needed to understand the way the system worked and
direct its workings wisely. By the mid-nineteenth century this belief manifested itself in
the tendency to aggregate individually reported statistical data to form a collective
portrait of British society. Statistical data soon pointed British sociologists toward some
of the failings of a market economy, notably poverty, but left them without adequate
theories of society to explain them.
Ameliorism is the desire to solve social problems by reforming individuals. Because the
British sociologists could not trace the source of problems such as poverty to the
society as a whole, then the source had to lie within individuals themselves.
A number of British thinkers were attracted to the evolutionary theories of Auguste
Comte. Most prominent among these was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who
believed that society was growing progressively better and therefore should be left
alone. He adopted the view that social institutions adapted progressively and positively
to their social environments. He also accepted the Darwinian view that natural selection
occurred in the social world. Among Spencer's more outrageous ideas was the
argument that unfit societies should be permitted to die off, allowing for the adaptive
upgrading of the world as a whole. Clearly, such ideas did not sit well with the
reformism of the ameliorists.
Other Developments
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) thought that human instincts were such a strong force
that Marx's hope to achieve dramatic social changes with an economic revolution was
impossible. Pareto offered an elite theory of social change that held that a small elite
inevitably dominates society on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Change occurs
when one group of elites begins to degenerate and is replaced by another. Pareto's
lasting contribution to sociology has been a vision of society as a system in equilibrium,
a whole consisting of balanced independent parts.
After his death, Marx's disciples became more rigid in their belief that he had
uncovered the economic laws that ruled the capitalist world. Seeing the demise of
capitalism as inevitable, political action seemed unnecessary. By the 1920's, however,
Hegelian Marxists refused to reduce Marxism to a scientific theory that ignored
individual thought and action. Seeking to integrate Hegel's interest in consciousness
with the materialist interest in economic structures, the Hegelian Marxists emphasized
the importance of individual action in bringing about a social revolution and
reemphasized the relationship between thought and action.
The Contemporary Relevance of Classical Sociological Theory
Classical sociological theories are important not only historically, but also because they
are living documents with contemporary relevance to both modern theorists and
today's social world. The work of classical thinkers continues to inspire modern
sociologists in a variety of ways. Many contemporary thinkers seek to reinterpret the
classics to apply them to the contemporary scene.









Karl Marx

Chapter 2 Chapter Summary




Introduction
There are a variety of interpretations of Karl Marx's (1818 - 1883) theory of
capitalism. This arises from both its unfinished nature and Marx's shifting points of
emphasis across his lifetime. The focus of Marx's work, however, was undoubtedly
on the historical basis of inequality, and specifically inequality under capitalism.
Marx's critiques of the capitalist system - its tendency towards crises, the necessity
of inequality - are still relevant today.
The Dialectic
Marx's powerful critique has as it basis a unique approach to reality - the dialectic.
Taking from G.W.F. Hegel (1770 - 1831), Marx believed that any study of reality
must be attuned to the contradictions within society and, indeed, he sees
contradiction as the motor of historical change. Unlike Hegel, Marx believed that
these contradictions existed not simply in our minds (i.e., in the way we understand
the world), but that they had a concrete material existence. At the heart of
capitalism was the contradiction between the demands of the capitalist to earn a
profit and the demands of the worker, who wants to retain some profit to subsist.
Over time, the workings of the capitalist system would exacerbate this
contradiction, and its resolution can be had only through social change.
The Dialectical Method
The dialectical approach does not recognize the division between social values and
social facts. To do so leads away from any real understanding of the problems
people face. Additionally, the dialectical method does not envision the social world
as being dominated by a cause-and-effect relationship; instead, it looks at the
reciprocal relations among social factors within the totality of social life. These
relations include not only contemporary phenomena but also the effects of history,
as dialecticians are concerned with how the past shapes the present and how the
present lays the seeds for the future. Because of this complex set of relations, which
often fold back in on themselves, the future is both indeterminate and contingent on
individual action. Indeed, this relationship between actors and structures is at the
heart of Marx's theory. Structures both constrain and enable individuals, having the
potential of both helping them to fulfill themselves and contributing to their
exploitation.
Human Nature
Marx's insights into actors and structures must be understood in the context of his
views on human nature, which is the basis for his critical analysis of the
contradictions of capitalism. Marx viewed human nature as historically contingent,
shaped by many of the same relations that affect society. In his view, a
contradiction exists between our human nature and work in the capitalist system.
Though we have powers that identify us as unique animals, our species being, the
possibilities for realizing human potential within the capitalist system are frustrated
by the structures of capitalism itself. Unlike most social theories that have implicit
assumptions about human nature, Marx elaborates a concept of human nature that
also informed his view of how society should look. An important factor in this is
Marx's ideas about labor. By objectifying our ideas and satisfying our needs, labor
both expresses our human nature and changes it. Through this process, individuals
develop their human powers and potentials.
Alienation
Under capitalism, the relationship between labor and human expression changes:
rather than laboring to fulfill their needs or express ideas, workers do so at the
demands of capitalists. Workers are alienated from their labor because it no longer
belongs to the worker, but rather to the capitalist. This alienates workers in four
ways:
1. Workers are alienated from their productive activity, in that they no longer
labor to satisfy their own needs.
2. Workers are alienated from the product of their labor, which now belongs to
the capitalist. Instead of finding expression in producing, workers turn to
consuming to express themselves.
3. The cooperative nature of work is destroyed through the organization of the
labor process, alienating workers from their fellow workers. Additionally,
workers often must compete against one another for work and pay.
4. Workers are alienated from their human potential, as the transformative
potential of labor is lost under capitalism.
The Structures of Capitalist Society
Marx wrote in response to the rapid changes taking place in Europe in response to
industrialization, particularly in Germany. This period of dislocation and poverty is
the context for Marx's notion of alienation, and his critiques were designed to show
that capitalism was the basis for alienation and to develop a plan for action for
overcoming the structures of capitalism. Marx understood that inherent within
capitalism was also a system of power: it is both economic and political; it both
coerces and exploits workers. Actions undertaken in the name of economic
necessity disguise political decisions For example, although it is an accepted
economic method for dealing with inflation, raising interest rates protects the
wealthy, while causing unemployment among the poor. The political decision to
privilege the wealthy at the expense of workers is hidden behind economics.
Commodities
Marx's understanding of commodities (products of labor intended for exchange) is
central to understanding his ideas about the nature of capitalism. Commodities
produced to subsist and to satisfy their needs have use value. Under capitalism,
where workers produce for others and exchange commodities for money, products
have exchange value. Because it is often unclear where a commodity's value comes
from, it takes on an independent, external reality. Marx called this the fetishism of
commodities, when the value of an object or commodity is believed to be tied to
something "natural" or independent of human action, such as markets. Thus, the
reality that value originates from labor and the satisfaction of needs is obscured.
Marx used the term reification to describe the process whereby social structures
become naturalized, absolute, independent of human action, and unchangeable.
Just as the fetishism of commodities obscures the relationship between
commodities, value, and human labor, reification obscures the underlying
relationships within the capitalist system and allows supposedly natural and
objective social structures to dominate people.
Capital, Capitalists, and Proletariat
Under capitalism, there are two main groups: the proletariat, who are wage-
laborers, and the capitalists, who own the means of production. Whereas workers
are wholly dependent upon wages, capitalists are dependent upon money invested
to create more money. Capital is unique to the circulation of commodities under
capitalism. Under non-capitalist forms of exchange, commodities are traded for
money, which is then traded for another commodity (C
1
- M - C
2
). The primary
reason for exchange is to obtain a commodity for use. Under capitalism, money is
used to purchase a commodity, which is then sold to create a greater amount of
money (M
1
- C - M
2
). The purpose of this form of exchange is to create greater and
greater sums of money.
Exploitation
Exploitation is a set of social relations on which capitalism is built. Capitalists exploit
workers by paying them less in wages than the value they produce. While a worker
may earn eight dollars a day in wages, s/he may produce ten dollars a day worth of
value, creating what Marx called surplus value. Capital grows by exploiting workers
to generate ever greater amounts of surplus value, usually by lowering workers'
wages. In addition, capitalists constantly compete with one another over capital by
finding new ways to generate profit and surplus value in order to maintain an edge.
Marx calls this drive the general law of capitalist accumulation. Capitalism is not the
only historical epoch in which individuals are exploited, but it is the only one in
which the mechanisms of exploitation are hidden behind independent, objectified,
and reified structures, such as the market.
Class Conflict
The conflict created by the contradictory positions of two groups, the proletariat and
the capitalists, is at the heart of capitalism. Because these represent groups in
conflict, Marx called them classes. For Marx, every period of history contained fault
lines upon which potential conflict could result, and, thus, every historical period
had its own class formations. Because capitalists are continually accumulating
capital while also competing with other capitalists, Marx believed that more and
more members of society would eventually become proletarians in a process he
called proletarianization. Society would then be characterized by a very small
number of capitalists exploiting a large number of poor proletarians subsisting on
low wages. Marx called this group of proletarians the industrial reserve army. Thus,
the normal operation of the capitalist system, through competition and exploitation,
produces an ever greater number of workers who will eventually rise up to
overthrow the system.
Capitalism as a Good Thing
Despite his criticisms, Marx was aware of the benefits of capitalism, and generally
understood it to be a good thing. The productive capacity of capitalism could free
people from need, and it delivered people from the traditions that have dominated
them throughout history. Marx criticized capitalism from a future-oriented
perspective, based upon his understanding of what capitalism, as a revolutionary
force in modern society, was capable of, and what its limits were.
Marx thought that capitalism had fully developed itself and that it was ready to
enter a new mode of production, communism.
The Materialist Conception of History
Marx's future-oriented perspective has its basis in his materialist conception of
history. He suggests that the ways societies provide for their material well-being
affects the type of relations that people will have with one another, their social
institutions, and the prevailing ideas of the day. Marx uses the term "the forces of
production" to refer to the ways in which people provide for their needs. He uses
the term "relations of production" to describe social relationships that dominate the
productive capacities of a society. Under capitalism, the forces of production lead to
a set of relations of production which pit the capitalist and the proletariat against
one another. To change the relations of production, Marx felt revolution was
necessary. Revolution arises from exploited classes agitating for change in the
relations of production that favor transformations in the forces of production.
Ideology
The relations of production act to dissuade revolutionary behavior, as do the
prevalent ideas within society. Many of these ideas cloud the true relationships that
underlie capitalist society. Marx called these kinds of ideas ideologies. The first type
of ideology is emergent from the structure of society, and can be seen in things like
the fetishism of commodities, or money. The second type is used by the ruling class
to hide the contradiction of this system when it becomes apparent. These explain
away the contradiction by making them seem coherent (as in religion or
philosophy), making them seem the product of personal pathologies, or making
them seem a reflection of the contradiction within human nature itself and,
therefore, immutable. Marx used equality and freedom, our ideas of which stem
from the nature of commodity exchange in capitalist society. These mask the fact
that we are neither equal with one another nor able to freely control our labor or the
products of our labor. Capitalism inverts our notion of equality and freedom: it is
capital that is freely and equally exchanged, not individuals who are free and equal.
Marx also viewed religion as an ideology. Just as freedom and equality are ideas to
be cherished, religion also contains positive dimensions, but it has been used to
disguise the true set of relations that undergird capitalism.
Criticisms
Marx has faced a number of criticisms. Most importantly, actual existing
communism failed to fulfill its promise. Though these experiments may have
distorted Marx's thought, Marxist theory certainly did not reflect its practice.
Second, history has shown that workers have rarely been in the vanguard of
revolutionary movements, and indeed have resisted communism in some places.
Third, Marx failed to adequately consider gender as factor in the reproduction of
labor and commodity production. Fourth, some have accused Marx of focusing far
too much on production, without giving enough attention to the act of consumption.
Last, Marx's historical materialist approach uncritically accepts Western notions of
progress.















Emile Durkheim

Chapter 3 Chapter Summary




Sociology as a Discipline and Social Facts
Emile Durkheim(1858-1917) is considered one of the "fathers" of sociology
because of his effort to establish sociology as a discipline distinct from philosophy
and psychology. This effort is evident in the two main themes that permeate
Durkheim's work: the priority of the social over the individual and the idea that
society can be studied scientifically. Durkheim's concept of social facts, in particular,
differentiates sociology from philosophy and psychology.Social facts are the social
structures and cultural norms and values that are external to, and coercive over,
individuals. Social facts are not attached to any particular individual; nor are they
reducible to individual consciousness. Thus, social facts can be studied empirically.
According to Durkheim, two different types of social facts exist: material and
immaterial. Durkheim was most interested in studying the latter, particularly
morality, collective conscience, collective representation, and social currents.
The Division of Labor
In this work Durkheim discusses how modern society is held together by a division
of labor that makes individuals dependent upon one another because they specialize
in different types of work. Durkheim is particularly concerned about how the division
of labor changes the way that individuals feel they are part of society as a whole.
Societies with little division of labor (i.e., where people are self-sufficient) are
unified by mechanical solidarity; all people engage in similar tasks and thus have
similar responsibilities, which builds a strong collective conscience. Modern society,
however, is held together by organic solidarity (the differences between people),
which weakens collective conscience. Durkheim studied these different types of
solidarity through laws. A society with mechanical solidarity is characterized by
repressive law, while a society with organic solidarity is characterized by restitutive
law.
Suicide
Durkheim's goal to differentiate sociology from psychology is perhaps best seen in
this work on how social facts can be used to explain suicide rates. This work is also
important because of the historical comparative method that Durkheim uses to
show that that suicide rates vary across societies and over time. According to
Durkheim, suicide cannot simply be explained by individual psychological problems-
otherwise suicide rates would be static. Durkheim argues that two social facts, in
particular, influence suicide rates: integration, or the strength of attachment people
feel to society, and regulation, or the degree of external constraint on people.
Durkheim distinguishes between four types of suicide that correlate to these two
social facts. Egoistic suicide is a result of a lack of integration; altruistic suicide is a
result of too much integration; anomic suicide is a result of too little regulation; and
fatalistic suicide is a result of too much regulation.
Elementary Forms of Religious Life
This is perhaps Durkheim's most complex work, as he attempts to provide both a
sociology of religion and a theory of knowledge. In this work, Durkheim studies
primitive society to demonstrate that an enduring quality of all religions, even the
most modern, is the differentiation between the sacred and the profane. The sacred
is created through rituals, and what is deemed sacred is what morally binds
individuals to society. This moral bond then becomes, according to Durkheim, a
cognitive bond that shapes the categories we use to understand the social world.
The development of religion is not simply based on the differentiation between the
sacred and the profane, but also on religious beliefs, rituals, and the church. The
latter two conditions are particularly important to Durkheim because they connect
the individual to the social; individuals learn about the sacred and religious beliefs
through participating in rituals and the church. The most primitive form of religion is
totemism, which is connected to the least complex form of social organization, the
clan. The totem is the actual representation of the clan-it is the material
representation of the nonmaterial, collective morality of the clan.
Totemism is important to Durkheim's theory of knowledge in that it is one of his
categories of understanding: classification. Other categories of understanding
include time, space, force, causality, and totality. These six categories may be
abstract concepts, but they are all derived from social experiences, particularly
rituals. Durkheim acknowledges that it is possible for moral and cognitive categories
to change or be created anew through what he calls collective effervescence, or
periods of great collective exaltation.
Cult of the Individual
Although Durkheim focused much of his attention on the social, he did not dismiss
the idea of individualism. Indeed, he believed that in modern society the individual
has become sacred, and he called the modern form of collective conscience the cult
of the individual. According to Durkheim, humans are constituted by two beings or
selves: one is based on the isolated individuality of the body, and the other is based
on the social. These two beings may be in a continual state of tension, and they are
connected in that individuality develops as society develops. For example, it is only
in modern society, characterized by the division of labor, that people even come to
understand themselves as distinct individuals. Durkheim argued that individuality
has both positive and negative consequences. Egoism, or the selfish pursuit of
individual interests, is at odds with moral individualism, the ability to sacrifice self-
interest for the rights of all other individual human beings.
Moral Education and Social Reform
Durkheim believed that society is the source of morality; therefore, he also believed
that society could be reformed, especially through moral education. According to
Durkheim, morality is composed of three elements: discipline, attachment, and
autonomy. Discipline constrains egoistic impulses; attachment is the voluntary
willingness to be committed to groups; and autonomy is individual responsibility.
Education provides children with these three moral tools needed to function in
society. Adults can also acquire these moral tools by joining occupational
associations. According to Durkheim, these associations would include members of a
particular occupation regardless of class position and could provide a level of
integration and regulation, both of which tend to be weakened by the division of
labor.
Criticisms
Durkheim is often criticized for being a functionalist and a positivist. However, his
historical comparative methodology puts him at odds with functionalists and
positivists who believe that invariant social laws exist that can explain social
phenomenon across all societies. Durkheim does tend to emphasize the objective
nature of social facts; thus, he neglects the subjective interpretations that social
actors may have of a particular social phenomenon and the agency of individuals in
general to control social forces. Furthermore, Durkheim's basic assumption about
human nature-that people are driven by their passion for gratification that can
never be satisfied-is not empirically substantiated in any of his work. Finally,
Durkheim's understanding of the relationship between morality and sociology has
been critiqued as being conservative.

















Max Weber

Chapter 4 Chapter Summary




Max Weber's Methodology
Max Weber (1864-1920) argued against abstract theory, and he favored an
approach to sociological inquiry that generated its theory from rich, systematic,
empirical, historical research. This approach required, first of all, an examination of the
relationships between, and the respective roles of, history and sociology in inquiry.
Weber argued that sociology was to develop concepts for the analysis of concrete
phenomena, which would allow sociologists to then make generalizations about
historical phenomena. History, on the other hand, would use a lexicon of sociological
concepts in order to perform causal analysis of particular historical events, structures,
and processes. In scholarly practice, according to Weber, sociology and history are
interdependent.
Weber contended that understanding, or verstehen, was the proper way of studying
social phenomena. Derived from the interpretive practice known as hermeneutics, the
method ofverstehen strives to understand the meanings that human beings attribute to
their experiences, interactions, and actions. Weber construed verstehen as a
methodical, systematic, and rigorous form of inquiry that could be employed in both
macro- and micro-sociological analysis.
Weber's formulation of causality stresses the great variety of factors that may
precipitate the emergence of complex phenomena such as modern capitalism.
Moreover, Weber argued that social scientists, unlike natural scientists, must take into
account the meanings that actors attribute to their interactions when considering
causality. Weber, furthermore, sought a middle ground between nomothetic (general
laws) and idiographic (idiosyncratic actions and events) views in his notion of a
probabilistic adequate causality.
Weber's greatest contribution to the conceptual arsenal of sociology is known as the
ideal type. The ideal type is basically a theoretical model constructed by means of a
detailed empirical study of a phenomenon. An ideal type is an intellectual construct that
a sociologist may use to study historical realities by means of their similarities to, and
divergences from, the model. Note that ideal types are not utopias or images of what
the world ought to look like.
Weber urged sociologists to reflect on the role of values in both research and the
classroom. When teaching, he argued, sociologists ought to teach students the facts,
rather than indoctrinating them to a particular political or personal point of view. Weber
did argue, however, that the values of one's society often help to decide what a scholar
will study. He contended that, while values play this very important role in the research
process, they must be kept out of the collection and interpretation of data.
Max Weber's Substantive Sociology
Max Weber's sociology is fundamentally a science that employs both interpretive
understanding and causal explanations of social action and interaction. His typology of
the four types of social action is central to comprehending his sociology. According to
Weber, social action may be classified as means-ends rational action, value-rational
action, affectual action, or traditional action. Any student of Weber must keep in mind
that these are ideal types.
Weber developed a multidimensional theory of stratification that incorporated class,
status, and party. Class is determined by one's economic or market situation (i.e., life
chances), and it is not a community but rather a possible basis for communal action.
Status is a matter of honor, prestige, and one's style of life. Parties, according to
Weber, are organized structures that exist for the purposes of gaining domination in
some sphere of social life. Class, status, and party may be related in many ways in a
given empirical case, which provides the sociologist with a very sophisticated set of
conceptual tools for the analysis of stratification and power.
Weber also made a profound contribution to the study of obedience with his ideal types
of legitimate domination or authority. Rational-legal authority rests on rules and law.
Traditional authority rests on belief in established practices and traditions - i.e.,
authority is legitimate because it is exercised the way it has always been exercised.
Charismatic authority rests on belief in the extraordinary powers or qualities of a
leader. All of these forms of authority must take into account the point of view of those
obeying commands. Moreover, each form of authority is associated with a variety of
structural forms of organization and administration. Legal authority, for example, is
often associated with bureaucracy, while traditional authority is associated with
gerontocracy, patriarchalism, patrimonialism, and feudalism. Charismatic authority may
be associated with a charismatic form of organization. The dilemma of charismatic
authority, however, consists of the difficulty of maintaining charisma when the
charismatic leader dies. In other words, charismatic organizations tend to routinize
charisma, which invariably gives rise to either traditional or rational-legal authority.
Weber also argued that rationalization is a long-term historical process that has
transformed the modern world. His typology of forms of rationality is central to this
argument. He argued that there are four types of rationality: practical, theoretical,
formal, and substantive. He was most concerned with processes of formal and
substantive rationalization, especially as propelled by capitalism and bureaucracy.
Weber argued that rationalization has occurred in many spheres, including the
economy, law, religion, politics, the city, and art.
Weber's arguments regarding rationalization are exemplified in his studies of religion
and capitalism. These sophisticated and voluminous studies inquire into the ways in
which religious ideas, the spirit of capitalism, and capitalism as an economic system,
are interrelated. In short, according to Weber, Calvinism as a rational, methodical
system of religious beliefs and practices was an important factor in the emergence of
modern capitalism in the Western world. The economic ethics of other religions, such as
Hinduism and Confucianism, inhibited the emergence of modern capitalism in India and
China. Once modern capitalism emerged in the Western world, however, it spread the
effects of rationalization worldwide.
While Weber's work has had a profound impact on sociology - as well as other
disciplines - it is not without its critics. Some critics question the consistency and
applicability of Weber's method of verstehen. Others are puzzled by Weber's
methodological individualism as it is applied to macro-sociology. Some critics have
rebuked Weber for failing to offer any alternatives to rationalization, capitalism, and
bureaucracy. Finally, many critics decry Weber's unflagging pessimism about the future
of rationalization and bureaucracy.






















Georg Simmel

Chapter 5 Chapter Summary




Georg Simmel (1858-1918) is best known as a microsociologist who played a
significant role in the development of small-group research. Simmel's basic approach
can be described as "methodological relationism," because he operates on the principle
that everything interacts in some way with everything else. His essay on fashion, for
example, notes that fashion is a form of social relationship that allows those who wish
to conform to do so while also providing the norm from which individualistic people can
deviate. Within the fashion process, people take on a variety of social roles that play off
the decisions and actions of others. On a more general level, people are influenced by
both objective culture (the things that people produce) and individual culture (the
capacity of individuals to produce, absorb, and control elements of objective culture).
Simmel believed that people possess creative capacities (more-life) that enable them to
produce objective culture that transcends them. But objective culture (more-than-life)
comes to stand in irreconcilable opposition to the creative forces that have produced it
in the first place.
Primary Concerns
Simmel's interest in creativity is manifest in his discussions of the diverse forms of
social interaction, the ability of actors to create social structures, and the disastrous
effects those structures have on the creativity of individuals. All of Simmel's discussions
of the forms of interaction imply that actors must be consciously oriented to one
another. Simmel also has a sense of individual conscience and of the fact that the
norms and values of society become internalized in individual consciousness. In
addition, Simmel has a conception of people's ability to confront themselves mentally,
to set themselves apart from their own actions, which is very similar to the views of
George Herbert Mead.
Simmel is best known in contemporary sociology for his contributions to our
understanding of patterns or forms of social interaction. Simmel made clear that one of
his primary interests was association among conscious actors and that his intent was to
look at a wide range of interactions that may seem trivial at some times but crucially
important at others. One of Simmel's dominant concerns was the form rather than the
content of social interaction. From Simmel's point of view, the sociologist's task is to
impose a limited number of forms on social reality, extracting commonalities that are
found in a wide array of specific interactions.
Along these lines, Simmel attempts to develop a geometry of social relations. The
crucial difference between the dyad (two-person group) and triad (three-person group)
is that a triad presents a greater threat to the individuality of group members. In a
larger society, however, an individual is likely to be involved in a number of groups,
each of which controls only a small portion of his or her personality. Distance also
determines the form of social interaction. For example, the value of an object is a
function of its distance from an actor. Simmel considered a wide range of social forms,
including exchange, conflict, prostitution, and sociability.
One of the main focuses of Simmel's historical and philosophical sociology is the
cultural level of social reality, which he called objective culture. In Simmel's view,
people produce culture, but because of their ability to reify social reality, the cultural
world and the social world come to have lives of their own and increasingly dominate
the actors who created them. Simmel identified a number of components of objective
culture, including tools, transportation, technology, the arts, language, the intellectual
sphere, conventional wisdom, religious dogma, philosophical systems, legal systems,
moral codes, and ideals. The absolute size of objective culture increases with
modernization. The number of different components of the cultural realm also grows.
What worried Simmel most was the threat to individual culture posed by the growth of
objective culture.
The Philosophy of Money
In The Philosophy of Money, Simmel assesses the impact of the money economy on the
inner world of actors and the objective culture as a whole. Simmel saw money as linked
with social phenomena such as exchange, ownership, greed, extravagance, cynicism,
individual freedom, style of life, culture, and the value of personality. In general, he
argued that people create value by making objects, separating themselves from those
objects, and then seeking to overcome distance, obstacles, and difficulties. Money
serves both to create distance from objects and to provide the means to overcome it.
Money provides the means by which the market, the economy, and ultimately society,
acquire a life of their own that is external to and coercive of the actor. Simmel saw the
significance of the individual declining as money transactions became an increasingly
important part of society. A society in which money becomes an end in itself can cause
individuals to become increasingly cynical and to have a blas attitude.
Objective Culture
The increasing division of labor in modern societies leads to an improved ability to
create the various components of the cultural world. But at the same time, the highly
specialized individual loses a sense of the total culture and loses the ability to control it.
As objective culture grows, individual culture atrophies. The massive expansion of
objective culture has had a dramatic effect on the rhythm of life. For example, our
means of communication are more efficient, meaning that slow and unpredictable
communication has been replaced with readily available mail, telephone, and e-mail
service. On the positive side, people have much more freedom because they are less
restricted by the natural rhythm of life. On the negative side, problems arise because
the growth of objective culture generates cultural malaise, cultural ambivalence and,
ultimately, a tragedy of culture.
Secrecy
Simmel's work on secrecy is characteristic of his work on social types. Simmel defines
secrecy as a condition in which one person is intentionally hiding something while
another person is seeking to reveal what is being hidden. Simmel examines various
forms of social relationships from the point of view of reciprocal knowledge and
secrecy. According to Simmel, confidence is an intermediate state between knowledge
and ignorance about a person. Acquaintanceship is a relationship in which there is far
more discretion and secretiveness than there is among intimates. Friendship is not
based on total intimacy, but rather involves limited intimacy based on common
intellectual pursuits, religion, and shared experiences. Marriage is the least secretive
form of relationship. Simmel sees the secret as one of man's greatest achievements
because it makes for a strong "we-feeling" among those who know the secret. But the
secret is always accompanied dialectically by the possibility that it can be discovered.
Simmel thought that the social structure of modern society permits and requires a high
degree of secrecy. The money economy, for example, allows people to hide
transactions, acquisitions, and changes in ownership.
Criticisms
Simmel is most frequently criticized for the fragmentary character of his work. He did
not devise a systematic sociology on a par with Marx, Durkheim, or Weber. Marxists
criticize Simmel for not seeing a way out of the tragedy of culture-an analytic
equivalent to Marx's concept of alienation.












A Historical Sketch of Sociological Theory: The Later Years

Chapter 6 Chapter Summary




Early American Sociology
Much of early American sociology was defined by the influence of Herbert Spencer (1820-
1903); various strands of Social Darwinism; and political liberalism - with the latter
paradoxically contributing to the discipline's conservativism. William Graham Sumner
(1840-1910) and Lester F. Ward (1841-1913) exemplify these tendencies in late
nineteenth- and early twentieth-century American sociological theory, but their work has
certainly not passed the test of time. Other early American sociologists, especially from the
Chicago School, did have an enduring impact on sociological theory. W.I. Thomas (1863-
1947), Robert Park (1864-1944), Charles Horton Cooley (1864-1929), and George
Herbert Mead (1863-1931) profoundly shaped the theoretical landscape of symbolic
interactionism, and their ideas predominated until the institutionalization of sociology at
Harvard University in the 1930s. While for many years sociologists have emphasized these
three theoretical orientations, scholars of sociology have recently pointed to the significance
of early women sociologists such as Jane Addams (1860-1935), Charlotte Perkins
Gilman (1860-1935), and Beatrice Potter Webb (1858-1943), as well as the race
theory of W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963).
Sociology at Harvard, Marxian Theory, and the Rise and Decline of Structural
Functionalism
Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968) was a central figure in the founding of sociology at Harvard
University during the 1930s. Sorokin was soon overshadowed, however, by Talcott
Parsons (1902-1979). Parsons is a key figure in the history of sociological theory in the
United States because he introduced European thought to large numbers of American
sociologists and developed a theory of action and, eventually, structural functionalism.
Parsons helped to legitimize grand theory in the United States, and produced many
graduate students who carried his ideas to other departments of sociology in the U.S. The
rise of structural functionalism to a dominant position in the 1940s and 1950s led to the
decline of the Chicago School.
While structural functionalism was gaining ground in the United States, the Frankfurt school
of critical theory was emerging in Europe. With the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the
National Socialists in Germany, many of the critical theorists fled to the United States,
where they came into contact with American sociology. Thinkers such as Max Horkheimer
(1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), and Herbert Marcuse (1898-
1979)propounded a kind of Marxian theory that was heavily influenced by the work
of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), Max Weber (1864-1920), and Sigmund Freud (1856-
1939). Much of the critical theorists' work, however, was neglected until the 1960s.
During the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, many criticisms and challenges to structural functionalism
emerged. Radical sociologists such as C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) and conflict theorists
attacked structural functionalism for its grand theory, purported political conservatism,
inability to study social change, and lack of emphasis on social conflict. Other theorists, such
as Erving Goffman (1922-1982) and George Homans (1910- ), developed
dramaturgical analysis and exchange theory, respectively. The sociological phenomenology
of Alfred Schutz (1899-1959) prompted a great deal of interest in the sociology of
everyday life, which is exemplified by Harold Garfinkel's (1917- ) ethnomethodology.
The Rise and Fall of Marxian Theory
During the 1970s and 1980s, a number of scholars revived Marxist perspectives in studies
of historical sociology and economic sociology, while others began to question the viability
of Marxian theory given the atrocities committed in the name of Marxism and the collapse of
the Soviet Union and other Marxist regimes. Ritzer and Goodman suggest that neo-Marxian
theory will see something of a renaissance as a consequence of the inequalities of
globalization and the excesses of capitalism.
Late Twentieth-Century Social Theory
In the last thirty years or so, a number of theoretical perspectives have emerged. First, and
perhaps most significant, is the rise of feminist theory. Second, structuralism, post-
structuralism, and post-modernism gained considerable ground - most notably in the work
ofMichel Foucault (1926-1984). Third, in the United States, many sociological theorists
have developed an interest in the micro-macro link. Fourth, the debate over the relationship
between agency and structure - which developed mainly in Europe - has made its way into
sociological theory in the U.S. Finally, in the 1990s a number of sociological thinkers have
taken an interest in theoretical syntheses.
Early Twenty-First-Century Theory
While the future of sociological theory is unpredictable, a number of perspectives have come
to the forefront in recent years. Multicultural social theory, for example, has exploded in the
past 20 years. Post-modernism continues to be influential, though some post-post-
modernists are making headway. Finally, theories of consumption are shifting the focus of
sociology away from its productivist bias and toward consumers, consumer goods, and
processes of consumption.








Structural Functionalism, Neofunctionalism, and Conflict
Theory



Chapter 7 Chapter Summary




Structural Functionalism
Although popular, even dominant, after World War II, structural functionalism is today generally
of only historical interest. Emerging as an offshoot of organicism, structural functionalists were
mainly societal functionalists who were interested in large-scale social structures and institutions
within society, how they interrelate, and their constraining effects on actors.
One of the earliest and better known applications of structural functionalism was thefunctional
theory of stratification. This theory argued that stratification was universal and necessary for
society, and that it was therefore functional. Stratification here refers to positions rather than
individuals and to the way that individuals are placed in the appropriate position. Since some
positions are more important, more pleasant, and require different skills, a system of
stratification is necessary to make sure all roles are fulfilled. Much like other versions of
structural functionalism, this theory is criticized as conservative and lacking in empirical support.
Talcott Parsons
The single greatest contributor, and practitioner, of structural functionalism was Talcott
Parsons (1902-1979). The heart of Parsons's theory is built on the four functional imperatives,
also known as the AGIL system:
1. The adaptive function, whereby a system adapts to its environment.
2. The goal-attainment function, i.e., how a system defines and achieves its goals.
3. The integrative function, or the regulation of the components of the system.
4. Latency, or pattern maintenance function, i.e., how motivation and the dimensions of
culture that create and sustain motivation are stimulated.
Complementing this are four action systems, each of which serve a functional imperative:
the behavioral organism performs the adaptive function; the personality system performs goal
attainment; the social system performs the integrative function; and the cultural systemperforms
pattern maintenance. Parsons saw these action systems acting at different levels of analysis,
starting with the behavioral organism and building to the cultural system. He saw these levels
hierarchically, with each of the lower levels providing the impetus for the higher levels, with the
higher levels controlling the lower levels.
Parsons was concerned primarily with the creation of social order, and he investigated it using his
theory based on a number of assumptions, primarily that systems are interdependent; they tend
towards equilibrium; they may be either static or involved in change; that allocation and
integration are particularly important to systems in any particular point of equilibrium; and that
systems are self-maintaining. These assumptions led him to focus primarily on order but to
overlook, for the most part, the issue of change.
The basic unit of Parsons's social system is the status-role complex. Actors are seen as a
collection of statuses and roles relatively devoid of thought. Parsons's interest was in the large-
scale components of social systems, such as collectivities, norms, and values. Parsons also
thought that social systems had a number of functional prerequisites, such as compatibility with
other systems, fulfillment of the needs of actors, support from other systems, inducing adequate
levels of participation from its members, controlling deviance, controlling conflict, and language.
Parsons was particularly interested in the role of norms and values. He focused on the
socialization process, whereby society instills within individuals an outlook in which it is possible
for them to pursue their own self-interest while still serving the interests of the system as a
whole. It was through socialization that Parsons believed that actors internalized the norms of
society. Physical or coercive systems of control were seen as only a secondary line of defense.
The cultural system is at the very pinnacle of action systems. For instance, Parsons believed that
culture had the capability of becoming a part of other systems, such as norms and values in the
social system. Culture is defined as a patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of
orientation to actors, internalized aspects of the personality system, and institutionalized
patterns. The symbolic nature of culture allows it to control other action systems.
The personality system generates personality, defined as the organized orientation and
motivation of action in the individual actor, built by need-dispositions and shaped by the social
setting. Again Parsons presents a passive view of actors.
In order to deal with change, Parsons turned to a form of evolutionary theory, focusing on
differentiation and adaptive upgrading. He suggested three evolutionary stages: primitive,
intermediate, and modern. This perspective suffers from a number of flaws, primarily because it
sees change as generally positive and does not deal with the process of change, but rather points
of equilibrium across periods of change.
One way that Parsons does inject a real sense of dynamism into his theory is with the concept of
the generalized media of interchange. Although this concept is somewhat ambiguous, it can be
thought of as resources, particularly symbolic resources, for which there is a universal desire
(e.g., money, influence, or political power). The suggestion that individuals might act to influence
the social distribution of such resources (as media entrepreneurs) adds dynamism to what is
often seen as a static theory.
Robert Merton
Robert Merton(1910-2003) attempted to rectify some of the weaknesses within structural
functionalism. Specifically, he criticized the underlying assumptions of functionalism and added
complexity to how structural functionalism dealt with the relationship between structures and
functions. Dispensing with the notion that all parts of the system are functional, highly
integrated, and indispensable, he created a system of concepts to deal with the ways in which
structures may be related to the whole. For instance, he suggested that some social facts might
be dysfunctional, meaning they may have negative consequences for other social facts. Overall,
he thought that it was possible to have an idea of the balance of a structure by taking into
account dysfunctions, functions, and nonfunctions. He also added additional complexity by
asserting that this sort of analysis may be performed at various levels of functional analysis, as
"functions" might be a matter of perspective. For instance, slavery was functional for some and
dysfunctional for others.
Merton was also concerned with the intended and unintended functions of structures, ormanifest
and latent functions, and their unanticipated consequences. He added nuance to structural
functionalism by noting that dysfunctional structures can exist within systems, depending on
their relationship to other systems. Thus not all structures are positive, nor are all of them
indispensable.
Merton also took up Emile Durkheim's (1857-1917) notion of anomie. He suggested that
when individuals cannot act in accordance with normalized values or realize normalized goals
because of the obstacles created by social structures, it produces deviant behavior.
Criticisms
There are a number of criticisms of structural functionalism: it is ahistorical; it is unable to deal
effectively with the process of change or conflict; and it is conservative. It is viewed as
ambiguous and lacking in adequate methods. Structural functionalism inhibits certain forms of
analyses, such as comparative analysis. Structural functionalism has also been described as both
illegitimately teleological and tautological. The former implies that structural functionalists rely
too heavily on the notion that social structures have purposes or goals. This notion is posited to
justify the existence of particular structures without adequate theoretical reasons or empirical
backing. Tautology suggests that the conclusion of a theory makes explicit what is implicit in the
premise of the theory. Thus, structural functionalism defines the whole in terms of the parts and
the parts in terms of the whole.
Neofunctionalism
Neofunctionalism was an attempt by theorists such as Jeffrey Alexander, among others, to
revive the stronger tenets of structural functionalism. Neofunctionalism attempted to synthesize
portions of structural functionalism with other theories. It highlighted the interactional patterning
of the elements that constitute society, attended to both action and order, understood integration
as a possibility rather than as fact, adopted various portions of Parsons's action systems, and
traced the process of social change that resulted from differentiation within action systems.
Conflict Theory
Associated primarily with the work of Ralf Dahrendorf (1929- ), conflict theory arose primarily
as a reaction against structural functionalism and in many ways represents its antithesis. Where
structural functionalism sees a near harmony of purpose from norms and values, conflict theory
sees coercion, domination, and power. Dahrendorf saw both theories as addressing different
situations, depending upon the focus of the study. According to Dahrendorf, functionalism is
useful for understanding consensus while conflict theory is appropriate for understanding conflict
and coercion.
For Dahrendorf the distribution of authority was a key to understanding social conflict. Authority
is located not within people but within various positions. Authority is created by the expectation
of certain types of action associated with particular positions, including subordination of others
and subordination to others. Various positions of authority exist within associations. The fault
lines that spring up around competing loci of authority generate conflicting groups. The conflict
between these groups pervades their interaction, with the result that authority is often
challenged and tenuous.
Much as Merton looked at latent and manifest functions, Dahrendorf identified latent and
manifest interests, or unconscious and conscious interests. The connection between these two
concepts was a major problematic for conflict theory. Dahrendorf posited the existence of three
types of groups: quasi- groups, interest groups, and conflict groups. Dahrendorf felt that, under
ideal circumstances, conflict could be explained without reference to any other variables.
Conflict theory has been criticized for being ideologically radical, underdeveloped, and unable to
deal with order and stability. Both functionalism and conflict theory share the weakness of being
able to explain only portions of social life.
Conflict Sociology
Randall Collins developed a form of conflict theory that focuses far more on micro-level
interactions than does Dahrendorf. It criticized previous conflict theories and theories of
stratification as "failures," and attempted to focus on the role of individual action in the process
of stratification. His theory of stratification is rooted in Marxist, phenomenological, and
ethnomethodological concerns, focusing on material arrangements and exploitation in real-life
situations. Collins extended his theory to deal with various dimensions of stratification, such as
gender and age inequality, as well as looking at stratification within formal organizations.























Varieties of Neo-Marxian Theory





Chapter 8 Chapter Summary



Since the time of Karl Marx's writing, a variety of theories have emerged that bear the
Marxian legacy, although in many different ways.
Economic Determinism
Although it is often said that Marx was an economic determinist, or, rather, that he
focused narrowly on how the economic dimension of society determined the shape
of the rest of society, this view overlooks Marx's dialectical inclinations. A number
of the so-called revisionist Marxists, including Friedrich Engels (1820-
1895), Karl Kautsky (1850-1938), and Eduard Bernstein (1850-
1932), espoused an economically deterministic brand of Marxism, influenced
primarily by the boom and busts that characterized this period of capitalism.
Hegelian Marxism
One reaction to the growth of economic determinism was a renewed focus on
Marx's philosophical writings, particularly their Hegelian roots. Although a number
of Marx's early writings, which were primarily philosophical in their orientation,
were unpublished and therefore unavailable to scholars at the time, Georg Lukcs
(1885-1971) managed to anticipate much of what was to be revealed of Marx's
philosophical perspective. In particular, Lukcs focused on two major concepts -
reification and class consciousness. With reification he extended Marx's notion of
the fetishism of commodities to include the process by which any portion of social
life could be made a "thing," rather than just commodities. Lukcs also developed
the notion of class consciousness, or the belief systems shared by those who
occupy the same class position within society. Conversely, those who occupy the
same class position may be unaware of their common lot, and may possess a false
consciousness. Although classes are a part of every historical epoch, to Lukcs it
was only under capitalism that a class could achieve true class consciousness and
be a truly revolutionary force. Lukcs discussed the ways in which the nature of
the capitalist system is obscured. He thought that once these were revealed,
society would become a battleground in the conflict between those who wished to
conceal the class character of society and those who wished to expose it.
Another important Hegelian Marxist is Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). Gramsci
rejected deterministic Marxist formulations, focusing instead on how revolution was
contingent on action on the part of the masses, assuming they became conscious
of the nature of capitalism and their role in it. This they could do only by using the
analysis provided to them by intellectuals. Perhaps the most important contribution
Gramsci made to Neo-Marxian theory has been the concept of hegemony, which he
referred to as the cultural leadership exercised by the ruling class. Thus,
revolutionary forces must not only change the material bases of society, but they
must also wrest from its oppressors the cultural leadership of society.
Critical Theory
Critical theory grew up around a group of German neo-Marxists who were unhappy
with the economic determinism of turn-of-the-century Marxism. Rather than
focusing on the material dimensions of society, the critical school focused primarily
on culture. As its name suggests, critical theory is predominantly known for
offering critiques of various dimensions of society. Central to this were its critiques
of positivism (it leads to passivity), sociology (for its scientism), modern society
(rationalization and the absence of reasonableness, as in the rationality), and
culture (the pacifying and repressive effects of mass culture disseminated by the
culture industry). The critical school has been credited with refocusing attention on
subjective phenomena, despite Marx's materialist tendencies. For example, the
critical school also had an interest in ideology and its role in domination. They were
also dialecticians who attempted to relate the parts of society to its whole, or its
totality. Critical theory has been criticized for its lack of historical focus, its weak
treatment of economic factors, and its lack of faith in the working class as a
revolutionary force.
A slightly different variant found within the critical school tradition is the work
of Jurgen Habermas(1929- ). Habermas believes that Marx oversimplified the
social component of species-being. Habermas takes as his starting point the
necessity of communicative action in the realization of species-being, which
emerges from the distinction between purposive-rational action (work) and
communicative action (interaction). While Marx's central problematic was the
alienation of workers, Habermas's is the alienation of communication, or the
"distortion" of communication. Habermas is concerned with the technological
dominance of life through the rationalization of purposive-action. However, unlike
other theorists, Habermas argues that rationalization can have a positive effect if it
rationalizes communication, which would lead to a communication free from
domination, creating a form of emancipatory communication. Habermas's idea of a
rational society is a society constructed of free communication, where ideas are
weighed on their merits and unaltered by ideology.
Neo-Marxian Economic Sociology
Noting that the period in which Marx formulated his critique of capitalism was a
specific period in the development of capitalism, a number of theorists have
attempted to develop work that more accurately portrays the workings of the
capitalist system as it exists today. This can be seen as a shift away from focusing
on the era of competitive capitalism and towards looking at what has been
called monopoly capitalism. Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy are the major
contributors to this line of work, particularly in their book Monopoly Capitalism.
Monopoly capitalism involves a transformation in the ways in which companies
operate. Under monopoly capitalism, firms compete on the basis of advertising and
marketing rather than price. Further, markets are dominated by a small number of
very large firms. Lastly, there are many owners, in the form of stockholders, and
managers play a much larger role in the operation of the capitalist firms. Similar
work has been done byHarry Braverman. Braverman took a microscopic view and
looked at changes in the labor process. He emphasized that the control of workers
required task specialization, the separation of knowledge and execution, and
scientific management techniques. The overall effect of these strategies is to
increase productivity while decreasing the cost of labor. Machinery also plays a role
in this process. Braverman was one of the first neo-Marxists to deal with white-
collar clerical workers, as he tried to show that they faced a set of strategies of
control very similar to that faced by manual laborers.
One important line of research surrounds the transition from Fordism to post-
Fordism. Fordism is characterized by the assembly line and mass-production
techniques, whereas post-Fordism involves small, flexible production runs and high
technology. The importance of the Fordism/post-Fordism debate is related to the
argument of whether our current society is modern or postmodern. While some
have argued that post-Fordism is an improvement over Fordism, this overlooks the
fact that both exist simultaneously across the world and that empirical studies
have shown increased stress levels for those working in post-Fordist environments.
Historically Oriented Marxism
Perhaps the single most important contributor to historical Marxism has
been Immanuel Wallerstein (1930- ). Unlike other Marx-influenced thinkers,
Wallerstein focused on world-systems as his unit of analysis. The current capitalist
world economy is but one of three possible world-systems, along with the world
empire and a socialist world government, the latter of which has never existed.
Wallerstein breaks down the world system into core,periphery, and semi-periphery.
The core dominates the world economy and exploits the others. The periphery
provides raw materials, and the semi-periphery is a mix of the two. The world-
system eventually incorporated every nation, and was structured by three
processes: geographical expansion, the worldwide division of labor, and the
development of the core states. The world-systems perspective has been criticized
for under-developing a central Marxist problematic, since it focuses on relations
within the world system rather than relations between classes.
Neo-Marxian Spatial Analysis
A number of Marxists, influenced by the work of Michel Foucault (1926-1984),
have turned to an analysis of the production of space. Henri Lefebvre (1901-
1991) focuses on the ways in which space is used to reproduce the capitalist
system and the class structure that underpins it. For Lefebvre, notions of space
propagated by elites are used to achieve and maintain dominance, distorting the
use of space that would flow from people's natural experience of it. Edward
Soja attempts to integrated space, geography, and time. He developed the notion
of trialectics to understand cities as historical-social-spatial phenomena, with an

























emphasis on the spatial dimension. David Harvey highlights the attention Marx
paid to the spatial dimension, and the strength and weaknesses of his positions.
For Harvey, the necessity of capitalist expansion puts space near the center of
Marx's theory. Marx is faulted for paying little attention to the problematics
inherent in the territorial organization of states and for ignoring the way space
differentiates strata of the working class.
Post-Marxist Theory
Post-Marxists may be characterized by their nihilistic approach to the history of
Marxist thought, to the extent that they dispose of much of Marx's philosophical
underpinnings, as well as repudiating the existence of any truly Marxist
"method." John Roemer's analytical Marxism attempts to employ modern
positivistic methods of analysis to create a better "scientific" Marxism. This includes
incorporating rational-choice and game-theoretic orientations. Erik Olin
Wright has tried to bring robust, complex, empirical methods to the investigation
of Marxist themes. This has led him to break from Marx in at least one way,
illustrated in his notion of contradictory locations within class relations. This
suggests that individuals may hold multiple, sometimes contradictory, class
positions.
Marxian theory as a field has not escaped the wide-ranging influence of
postmodern thought. It has led to a focus on the relationship between discourse
and ideology, time-space compression, and the continuity between Fordism/post-
Fordism and modernity/postmodernity.
More generally, Ronald Aronson has gone so far as to suggest that Marxism as a
coherent theory is dead. The fall of the Soviet Union, and communism more
generally, is seen as the ultimate historical test of Marxian thought, and it has
failed. The birth of so many variants of Marxism has destroyed its powerful
coherence in totality. Aronson views these new modifications as pure theory, and
not as an expression of the unification of theory and practice that was central to
Marx's work. Because of this, he does not believe that these new formulations
should be called Marxist.



Systems Theory


Chapter 9 Chapter Summary




Sociology and Modern Systems Theory
Despite the checkered past of systems theory in sociology, some scholars have pointed
to its advantages. Walter Buckley (1921-), for example, argued that systems theory
provides a way to unify all the behavioral and social sciences; it is a multi-leveled
approach; it is interested in many varied relationships in the social world; it emphasizes
processes of information and communication; it is integrative; and it views the world in
dynamic terms.
Buckley maintained that three different kinds of systems exist: mechanical, organic,
and sociocultural. These three kinds of systems differ qualitatively as well as
quantitatively - i.e., in terms of the way they work as well as their degree of complexity
and instability. Systems may also be described in terms of the degree to which they are
open or closed. Open systems (e.g., sociocultural systems) tend to respond to a
greater range of fluctuations in the environment than closed systems do. Closed
systems generally are entropic (i.e., they tend to break down), while open systems
tend to be negentropic (i.e., they tend to elaborate structures).
Sociocultural systems are often purposive and goal-seeking due to their capacity to
receive feedback from their environments. Feedback - which is key to the cybernetic
approach to systems analysis - allows analysts to take into account change, growth,
friction, and evolution in their studies of social systems. Moreover, systems theorists
emphasize the importance of internal processes such as morphogenesis (processes of
system change) and morphostasis (processes of system maintenance). Social
systems develop mediating systems for the purposes of maintenance and change.
Niklas Luhmann's General Systems Theory
Niklas Luhmann(1927-1998) addressed the problems of structural-functionalism by
focusing on self-reference and contingency (i.e., the fact that things could have
developed differently) in systems. Luhmann maintained that systems are always less
complex than their environments. Systems simplify by selecting pieces of information
from the complexity of an environment. Since systems are forced to select from a
plethora of pieces of information within an environment, the systems theorist must
acknowledge the contingency of a system's selections, because the system could have
selected differently. This contingency entails risk, because paying attention to some
bits of information while ignoring others may have unforeseen consequences for the
system if what is ignored is important to the user of the information.
Autopoietic systems, according to Luhmann, produce their own basic elements; they
are self-organizing insofar as they create their own boundaries and internal structures;
they are self-referential insofar as their elements refer to the system itself; and they
are closed systems insofar as they do not deal directly with their environments, but
rather with representations of their environments.
Society is an autopoietic system. According to Luhmann, the most basic element of
society is communication, and anything that is not communication is part of a society's
environment (e.g., biological and psychic systems). Both psychic and social systems -
which are environments for each other - rely on meaning. In Luhmann's theory,
meaning is comprehensible because of contingency. In other words, meaning emerges
only because a specific action is different from other possible actions.
Double contingency refers to the fact that every communication must consider the
way in which it will be received. In Luhmann's view, social structures (e.g., roles and
norms) make it more likely that communications will be understood by both sender and
receiver. Social structures also give communications some continuity over time. Double
contingency thus provides much of the impetus for the evolution of social systems.
Luhmann's theory eschews teleological views of evolution - i.e., the outcomes of
evolution are not predefined. Evolution, in Luhmann's view, is a set of processes that
includes variation, selection, and the stabilization of reproducible characteristics. Note
that the process of selection does not entail the choice of the best possible solution.
Selections often occur not because they are optimal, but because they are the easiest
to stabilize.
Luhmann's theory of differentiation is closely connected to his view of evolution. In
Luhmann's view, differentiation is the means by which a system deals with changes in
its environment. Differentiation tends to increase the amount of complexity in a given
system - that is, as an environment changes, a system (e.g., a bureaucracy) will
develop new departments in order to deal with such changes. Luhmann argues that
four forms of differentiation occur: segmentary, stratificatory, center-periphery, and
functional differentiation. The latter form of differentiation, according to Luhmann, is
the most complex and problematic for modern society, since it means that problems
are often displaced from the level of society to one of its subsystems (e.g., the problem
of ecology).
Finally, Luhmann argues that society is a world society that may on be observed only
from within the system. In Luhmann's view, knowledge of society may be gained
through the observation of the relationship between a society and its semantics, or the
way in which a society describes itself.
While Luhmann has made many contributions to sociological theory, one must
acknowledge some criticisms of his work. First, many thinkers view his theory of
evolution and functional differentiation as something to resist rather than embrace.
Others question his notion of differentiation as development. They point to processes of
de-differentiation and interpenetration as equally important counter-processes. Other
scholars are skeptical of Luhmann's ability to describe the inter-relationships between
systems. Moreover, many scholars cast doubt on Luhmann's sociology of knowledge as
inconsistent.



Symbolic Interactionism

Chapter 10 Chapter Summary




The Historical Roots of Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism, especially the work of George Herbert Mead (1863-
1931), traces its roots to two intellectual traditions: pragmatism and psychological
behaviorism. Mead adopted from the pragmatists three important themes: (1) a
focus on the interaction between actors and the social world, (2) a view of both
actors and the social world as dynamic processes, and (3) the centrality of actors'
ability to interpret the social world. In sum, both pragmatism and symbolic
interactionism view thinking as a process. Mead recognized the importance of
overt, observable behavior, but expanded the understanding of mental capacities
of most psychological behaviorists by stressing the importance of covert behavior.
Unlike the radical behaviorists, Mead believed that there were significant
differences between human beings and animals, particularly the human capacity to
use language and dynamically created social reality.
The Ideas of Mead
Mead's most widely read work, Mind, Self and Society, gives priority to society over
the mind and highlights the idea that the social leads to the development of mental
states. To Mead, the mind is a process, not a thing, and is found in social
phenomena rather than within individuals. The act is the fundamental union in
Mead's theory, and it is represented by four stages: impulse, perception,
manipulation, and consummation. The basic mechanism of the social act, according
to Mead, is the gesture. Mead pays particular attention to one kind of gesture,
significant symbols, which make it possible for humans to think, to communicate,
and to be stimulators of their own actions.
The self occupies a central place in Mead's theory. Mead defines the self as the
ability to take oneself as an object and identifies the basic mechanism of the
development of the self as reflexivity - the ability to put ourselves into the place of
others and act as they act. Mead makes it clear that a self can arise only through
social experiences, and he traces its development to two stages in childhood: the
play stage and the game stage. During the play stage, children learn how to take
the attitude of particular others to themselves, but it is only during the game stage
that children learn how to take the roles of many others and the attitude of the
generalized other. Mead also discussed the difference between the "I" and the
"me" in his theory of the self. The "I" is the immediate response of an individual to
the other; it is the unpredictable and creative aspect of the self. The "me" is the
organized set of attitude of others that an individual assumes; it is how society
dominates the individual and is a source of social control.
The Basic Principles of Symbolic Interactionism
The basic principles of symbolic interactionism include the following: (1) human
beings possess the capacity for thought, which is shaped by social interaction; (2)
people learn meanings and symbols through social interaction; and (3) people are
able to modify or alter the meanings and symbols they use in interactions by
interpreting the situations they are engaged in.
Socialization is one way individuals learn to think, interact with one another, and
understand how to use meanings and symbols. Defining the situation is another
way that individuals actively engage in creating the social world. Finally,
developing a "looking-glass" self helps individuals to perceive and judge the
impressions we make on others we interact with.
The Work of Goffman
Erving Goffman (1922-1982) focused on dramaturgy, a view of social life as a
series of dramatic performances, and he was interested in how the self is shaped
by the dramatic interactions between social actors and their audiences. The basic
unit of analysis in Goffman's work is a team, which is any set of individuals who
cooperate in staging a single act or routine. The central theme in his work is
impression management, or the techniques that social actors use to maintain
particular images of themselves when they encounter problems during interactions.
As a general rule, most individuals feel the need to hide certain things about
themselves when they are engaged in a performance. Goffman used the concepts
of front stage, personal front, setting, appearance, manner, and back stage to
discuss the theater of social life. According to Goffman, fronts tend to become
institutionalized and are therefore selected rather than created. Personal fronts
consist of appearance, or expressive equipment that tells the audience what kind
of role the performer expects to play in a particular situation. The back stage is
where actors engage in informal action that is suppressed when on front stage.
Goffman also addressed the issue of stigma in his work. Stigmas emerge when
there is a gap between a person's virtual social identity and actual social identity.
Goffman differentiated between discredited stigmas, which actors assume when
their stigmas are evident to audience members (like loss of a nose) and
discreditable stigmas, which audience members are unaware of unless an actor
discloses this information (like his being infertile.) According to Goffman, we all
possess some type of stigma, depending on the situations we are in.
Later in his career Goffman moved away from symbolic interactionism to the study
of small-scale structures or frames. Frames are understood by Goffman as rules
that constrain social action and function to organize experience. He also described
frames as the rituals of everyday life. Goffman's move toward studying frames and
rituals led him away from his earlier cynical view social life and brought him closer
to Durkheim's work The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism and Its New Directions















Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for relying too much on qualitative
methodology and for failing to incorporate quantitative methodology into its
research program. It has also been criticized for being too vague on the conceptual
front and for downplaying large-scale social structures. Given its micro-level focus,
some have argued that symbolic interactionism is not microscopic enough, because
it tends to ignore psychological factors.
Symbolic interactionists are currently trying to answer some of these criticisms by
integrating micro- and macro-level theories and synthesizing their approach across
other fields of study. For example, some scholars are redefining Mead's theory to
show that it accounts for both micro- and macro-level phenomena. Others are
using role theory as a way to integrate structure and meaning. Some symbolic
interactionists are focusing more attention on culture and are working within
cultural studies to examine the role communication technologies play in producing
and representing social reality.
Symbolic interactionism has changed considerably since its inception. According to
one symbolic interactionist, Gary Fine, the field has fragmented, resulting in
greater diversity. It has expanded beyond its concerns with micro-level relations,
incorporated ideas from other theoretical perspectives, and been adopted by
sociologists who would not define themselves as symbolic interactionists.


Ethnomethodology



Chapter 11 Chapter Summary


What is Ethnomethodology?
Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods or practices that people use to
accomplish their everyday lives. The founder of this sociological approach, Harold
Garfinkel(1917-), was particularly interested in how social actors provide accounts of
situations. Ethnomethodologists are not so much concerned with the actual content of
these accounts, but rather with the practice of accounting as a topic of analysis. For
example, an ethnomethodologist might study how a telephone conversation is shaped
by the actions of a caller and the responses of a receiver rather than by the subject
matter of the conversation. Early ethnomethodological research included breaching
experiments, which required subjects to deliberately disrupt the typical procedures of
everyday actions (e.g., addressing family members in a formal manner). Today,
ethnomethodologists focus their studies on social interactions in two broad areas:
conversation analysis and institutional settings.
Conversation Analysis
The goal of conversation analysis is to study the ways in which conversations are
organized. The unit of analysis of this method is the relationship among utterances, not
the relationship between speakers and hearers. Conversation analysts have researched
a variety of different types of speech, including telephone conversations, laughter,
applause, booing, and even nonverbal communication. The openings of telephone
conversations have been analyzed to discover the sequences social actors use to
identify and recognize each other without the benefit of visual contact. The organization
of utterances has also been analyzed in terms of how laugher is initiated. In a two-
party conversation, the speaker uses two techniques to generate laughter from the
listener: either laughing at the end of an utterance or laughing mid-sentence. However,
in a multi-party conversation, someone other than the speaker usually initiates
laughter.
Political speeches have also been analyzed in terms of how politicians generate
applause from their audiences. Politicians have been found to use seven different
rhetorical devices to generate applause, the most common being contrasting the same
point within a statement. Applause, like agreement, is generated promptly, in an
unqualified manner, and requires no special account. In contrast, disagreement,
particularly booing a public speaker, is delayed, qualified, and accountable. Unlike
applause or agreement, booing is not a result of individual decision-making, but of
mutual monitoring among audience members. Audience members will listen for vocal
cues (e.g., whispering or jeering) among each other, and they will predict from these
cues that no one will be booing alone.




























Other important findings of conversation analysts include the fact the story-telling is a
collaborative process: audiences are not passive recipients of stories, but can actively
shape a story as it is being told. Conversation analysts have also found that shyness
and self-confidence, usually thought of as psychological traits, are actually
accomplished through speech acts, particularly "setting-talk." "Setting-talk" refers to
talk about our immediate surroundings (e.g., the weather). Shyness is accomplished by
engaging in "setting-talk," while self-confidence is accomplished by addressing the
actual topic at hand.
Studies of Institutions
Analyzing conversations and social interactions that take place within institutional
settings is another area of research for ethnomethodologists. Research of job
interviews has found that interviewers use different strategies to prevent interviewees
from returning to or even correcting questions that have been asked. A study of
negotiations among business executives discovered that they are generally detached
and impersonal. Telephone calls to emergency centers have been found to be
structured in such a way that confusion arises because of the lack of everyday
openings, sequences, and recognition. While emergency dispatchers are often blamed
for this confusion, ethnomethodologists have shown that it is the specific organization
of the conversation that causes mishaps. Finally, research on mediation hearings has
shown that the institutional setting of conflict resolution lessens the chance of
conversations escalating into arguments.
Criticisms of Traditional Sociology
Ethnomethodologists are critical of traditional sociologists because the latter focus on
the socially constructed world instead of the everyday practices of social actors.
According to ethnomethodologists, traditional sociologists distort the social world by
relying too much on statistical analysis and preconceived coding categories, which
mask the sophisticated interactions people use to accomplish everyday life. Indeed,
traditional sociologists are becoming increasing removed from the real world as they
come to depend on research techniques that do not require them to actually observe
everyday practices. Ethnomethodologists criticize conventional sociologists for
confusing topic and resource - the everyday social world becomes more of a resource
than a topic in its own right.
Stresses and Strains in Ethnomethodology
Conventional sociologists view this sociological perspective with suspicion, because they
feel it focuses on trivial matters. Others worry that ethnomethodology has become
increasingly removed from its phenomenological roots, neglecting internal motivations
for action. Another concern raised by ethnomethodologists is that the perspective is
beginning to lose sight of its original radical reflexivity, particularly the emphasis on
how all social activity is accomplished. Finally, although some ethnomethodologists
worry about the capacity for this perspective to bridge the micro-macro divide, others
feel that there are positive signs that ethnomethodology is well-suited for synthesizing
and integrating micro-level interactions with macro-level structures. Indeed, the
"radical thesis" of ethnomethodology is that it transcends the issue of micro-macro
linkages because micro and macro structures are generated simultaneously.

Exchange, Network, and Rational
Choice Theories


Chapter 12 Chapter Summary


This chapter focuses on three theories: exchange theory, network theory, and rational
choice theory.
Exchange Theory
Exchange theory has its roots in behaviorism and rational choice theory. Behaviorism,
taken from psychology, is concerned with how behavior is modified by its
consequences, particularly how rewards and costs act as incentives or disincentives for
various forms of behavior. Rational choice theory, which is derived from neoclassical
economics, focuses on how actors seek to achieve their ends or goals in the face of
limited resources and institutions. From this perspective, actors act purposefully to
maximize their utility by rationally deciding upon courses of action appropriate for their
resources within the context of various social institutions, which encourage or
discourage various courses of action. These two theories were influential in the early
stages of exchange theory.
The father of exchange theory, George Homans (1910 - 1989), dealt primarily with
the psychological principles underlying social behavior. Although psychology was
concerned primarily with individual behavior, Homans felt that the rules governing
individual behavior were sufficient to explain all of social behavior. At the heart of his
theory was the idea that people acted to maximize their rewards in their social action.
Thus, the act of maximization usually involved an exchange with at least one other
person, although this exchange need not be-and usually was not-monetarily based, but
rather was the exchange of approval or disapproval, reward or punishment. Thus, the
various ways in which actors may mutually reinforce various forms of behavior explain
the hybridity of social action. Homans developed a number of propositions that help
explain social behavior, taken by and large from behaviorism and rational choice. Taken
together, Homans's theory creates an actor who is a rational profit-seeker, where profit
may be considered anything that is viewed as positive for the actor, including the
approval or positive reinforcement of others. The actor is rational to the extent that
she/he chooses courses of action that have the greatest likelihood of producing desired
results. Homans was criticized for not taking fully into account mental states, and for
not being able to adequately explain large-scale social structures.
Peter Blau (1918-2002) also developed a version of exchange theory. Much like
Homans, he attempted to use the rules that govern the relations between individuals
and groups as the basis for understanding social structures. Blau developed a four-
stage sequence that detailed the movement from "personal exchange transactions"
through "differentiation of status and power" on to the "legitimization and
organization," and into "opposition and change," thus detailing how "exchange" can
lead to both social structures and social change. Blau also roots his actors in the
rewards and penalties involved in social interaction, but gives more importance to
social structures that emerge from interaction between actors. Blau felt that these
social structures could affect the process of interaction itself. Blau also pushed the
boundaries of exchange theory by dealing with two kinds of organizations-both those
that were emergent from exchange and formal organizations, established to achieved
specific objectives, such as firms or political parties. Lastly, Blau recognized the
difference between large scale, complex social structures and small groups and
asserted that different rules do in fact govern these collectivities. Social structures were
governed by norms and values. He thought the "value consensus" within large
collectivities was a form of indirect exchange among actors, actors who would
otherwise not frequently exchange with every other member in the society or
community.
Richard Emerson (1925-1982) also developed a version of exchange theory. Much
as Homans and Blau attempted to move from micro-level interaction to macro-level
structures, Emerson employs many of the same principles to make a similar move.
However, he gives greater attention to sets of exchange relationships, which he
calls exchange networks. These networks are dependent upon the possibility of the
exchange of valued resources among all actors. Thus micro-level exchange can build
large structures. The focus on valued resources and opportunities also allows Emerson
to discuss power and dependency among actors.
Network Theory
In an attempt to move away from atomistic and normal approaches, network theorists
look at the pattern of ties linking actors together. Actors here may be groups,
corporations, or even societies, and they may be bound together by various forms of
bonds, such as "strong" or "weak" ties. Although network theory is still in its relative
infancy, it does have a number of guiding principles that specify how ties work, how
stratification develops within the network, and how collaboration and competition
emerge.
Network Exchange Theory
Network exchange theory combines elements of both exchange and network theory. It
attempts to merge the strong model of structure in network theory with the strong
model of relations between actors in exchange theory. Network exchange theory thus
strengthens network theory's weak view of agency and exchange theory's weak view of
structure. Network exchange theory looks at exchanges within the context of networks
of exchanges, with particular attention paid to the structural dimension (size, shape,
connections) of the network within which exchanges take place. Much like exchange
theory, it pays considerable attention to power in exchanges, as well as dependency
and vulnerability. Network exchange theorists identify two different types of networks:
strong and weak power networks. These are based on whether actors can be excluded
from exchanges, as well as the presence of strong and weak actors. Network exchange
theory thus can predict the distribution of resources across the network, depending on
the strength of the network and the strength of the actors who make up that network.
Considerations such as these provide one of the greatest benefits of combining network
and exchange theory: an expanded notion of agency that takes into account power
differentials between actors.
Rational Choice Theory
In sociology, the main proponent of rational choice theory has been James Coleman
(1931-1995). Because of Coleman's focus on social theory as an agent of social
change, he believes that the appropriate level for social analysis is at the micro, agent
level. Coleman believes that individuals act purposively towards their desired goals,
usually acting to maximize their utility, with their goals and utilities shaped by values or
preferences. Although he admits that actors are not always rational, he feels his
predictions would be the same regardless of their rationality.
While Coleman focuses on the micro-to-macro link, the movement from individual-level
behavior to the behavior of a system, he was also concerned with the macro-to-micro
connection, or the ways in which structures shape behavior, and the micro-to-micro
link, or how the behavior of individuals affects the behavior of other individuals. Three
weaknesses in this approach are apparent: (1) it privileges the micro-to-macro issue,
and thus does not pay enough attention to the other linkages; (2) it ignores the macro-
to-macro issue; and (3) the causal arrows flow in only one direction, thus
underestimating both feedback within relationships and the dialectical relationships
between levels.
Coleman attempts to build from micro-level action into macro-level phenomena, but
doing so in a way in which the conception of the actor remains constant across various
macro-level phenomena. Coleman sees the granting of authority and rights from one
individual to another as a basic building block in macro-level phenomena. This
subordination creates a "structure" rather than just two interacting individuals, thus
allowing for the possibility that individuals might maximize the interests of others, or of
a group. Coleman uses a similar perspective in trying to explain more chaotic macro-
level phenomena, which result from the unilateral transfer of control of an individual's
action from one individual to another. Because the transfer is unilateral, the careful
balancing act between individuals does not occur, and a stable system equilibrium does
not emerge.
Other systems are stable because norms develop. For Coleman, norms are created
when individuals give up control over their own behavior but gain some control over
others in the form of the rules governing behavior. Thus, these individuals see some
purpose in regulating behavior in some way. Coleman believed that norms were
effective only to the extent that a consensus existed that some individuals have the
right to control the behavior of others and that a mechanism existed to enforce the
consensus. Norms, then, are macro-level phenomena that emerge from purposive
micro-level interactions.
Coleman distinguishes between individual actors, who wish to maximize their individual
interests, and corporate actors, who act on the behalf of some group or collectivity.
Within any collectivity, both may be acting simultaneously, leading to resistance to the
authority of the collectivity. Because of the importance of collectivities to modern life,
Coleman sees a shift from primordial structures, such as families, towards corporate
structures, understanding that the ramifications of cross-purposes that exist between
individual and corporate actors are crucial for rational choice theory.
Ultimately, Coleman wishes to move away from homo sociologicus, or a view of actors
and action as structurally dependent, and towards homo economicus, a view of actors































who have the ability to act both in cooperation with, and despite of, structures.
Criticisms
Rational choice has faced a wide array of criticisms. For instance, critics argue that it:
(1) neglects to specify causal mechanisms; (2) promotes an inadequate psychological
reductionism; and (3) advocates a perspective that leads only to blind alleys. Some
have reacted to the hubris of rational choicers (who have voiced a desire to replace
other forms of theory), given that much of it is anathema from their perspective.
Rational choice has also been criticized for ignoring culture and for decomposing into
incoherence and tautology.


Contemporary Feminist Theory


Chapter 13 Chapter Summary



Contemporary Feminist Theory: Theoretical Orientation
Feminist theory is distinct from other theoretical perspectives in that it is woman-centered
and interdisciplinary, and it actively promotes ways to achieve social justice. Three core
questions inform feminist theory: (1) "What about the women?" (2) "Why is the social
world as it is?" and (3) "How can we change and improve the social world so as to make it
a more just place for women and for all people?"
Feminist theorists have also started to question the differences between women, including
how race, class, ethnicity, and age intersect with gender. In sum, feminist theory is most
concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have
contributed to society.
The Historical Roots of Feminist Theory
Historically, feminist activity has paralleled liberation events, including the American and
French Revolutions, the abolitionist movement in the 1830s, the mobilization for suffrage
in the early 1900s, and the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. These historical
movements of feminism are referred to as waves. First-wave feminism-including the first
women's rights convention, which was held in Seneca Falls, NY, in 1848, and the passage
of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote in 1920-is characterized by
women's struggle for political rights. Second-wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s and
the third-wave feminism of today emphasize a variety of issues, including the growth of
feminist organizations and publications and the increasing numbers of feminists in
government, the educational system, and other professions.
Varieties of Contemporary Feminist Theory
Four varieties of feminist theory attempt to answer the question "What about the women?"
The gender difference perspective tries to answer this question by examining how women's
location in, and experience of, social situations differ from men's. Cultural feminists look to
the different values associated with womanhood and femininity (e.g., caring, cooperation,
and pacifism) as a reason why men and women experience the social world differently.
Other feminist theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within
institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of labor in the
household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how women have been
marginalized and defined as the Other in patriarchal societies. Women are thus seen as
objects and are denied the opportunity for self-realization.
Gender-inequality theories look to answer the question "What about the women?" by
recognizing that women's location in, and experience of, social situations are not only
different but also unequal to men's. Liberal feminists argue that women have the same
capacity as men for moral reasoning and agency, but that patriarchy, particularly the
sexist patterning of the division of labor, has historically denied women the opportunity to
express and practice this reasoning. Women have been isolated to the private sphere of
the household and, thus, left without a voice in the public sphere. Even after women enter
the public sphere, they are still expected to manage the private sphere and take care of
household duties and child rearing. Liberal feminists point out that marriage is a site of
gender inequality and that women do not benefit from being married as men do. Indeed,
married women have higher levels of stress than unmarried women and married men.
According to liberal feminists, the sexual division of labor in both the public and private
spheres needs to be altered in order for women to achieve equality.
Theories of gender oppression go further than theories of gender difference and gender
inequality by arguing that not only are women different from or unequal to men, but that
they are actively oppressed, subordinated, and even abused by men. Power is the key
variable in the two main theories of gender oppression: psychoanalytic
feminism and radical feminism. Psychoanalytic feminists attempt to explain power relations
between men and women by reformulating Freud's theories of the subconscious and
unconscious, human emotions, and childhood development. They feel that conscious
calculation cannot fully explain the production and reproduction of patriarchy. For example,
the unconscious fear that men have towards their own mortality may account for why men
are driven to control women. Radical feminists argue that being a woman is a positive
thing in and of itself, but that this is not acknowledged in patriarchal societies where
women are oppressed. They identify physical violence as being at the base of patriarchy,
but they think that patriarchy can be defeated if women come recognize their own value
and strength, establish a sisterhood of trust with other women, confront oppression
critically, and form female separatist networks in the private and public spheres.
Structural oppression theories posit that women's oppression and inequality are a result of
capitalism, patriarchy, and racism. Socialist feminism combines Marxian class analysis with
feminist social protest in an attempt to answer the question "What about the women?"
They agree with Marx and Engels that the working class is exploited as a consequence of
the capitalist mode of production, but they seek to extend this exploitation not just to class
but also to gender. Intersectionality theorists seek to explain oppression and inequality
across a variety of variables, including class, gender, race, ethnicity, and age. They make
the important insight that not all women experience oppression in the same way. White
women and black women, for example, face different forms of discrimination in the
workplace. Thus, different groups of women come to view the world through a shared
standpoint of "heterogeneous commonality."
Feminism and Postmodernism
During the 1990s some feminists began to incorporate postmodern ideas and vocabulary
into their theoretical work. The oppositional epistemology of postmodernism complemented
feminism, particularly in questioning the relation of power to knowledge. However,
feministtheorists are cautious of the postmodern turn in social theory for several reasons.
They view postmodernism as too removed from political struggles. Postmodernism may
lead people away from collective action and towards a radical individualism. Furthermore,














feminists argue that postmodernism is too divorced from material reality - its focus on
discourse, representation, and texts ignores material inequality, injustice, and oppression.
Towards a Feminist Sociological Theory
Feminist sociological theory combines the various types of feminism discussed thus far to
focus on five major areas: the sociology of knowledge, the macro-social order, the micro-
social order, subjectivity, and theory integration. A feminist sociology of knowledge
emphasizes standpoint theory and intersectionality theory in relation to knowledge
production and power relations. Feminist sociologists who study the macro-social order
seek to expand Marx's analysis of economic production to social production more generally,
including the household, the state, religion, and sexuality. One main topic of concern for
these theorists is the production and reproduction of gender ideology. Feminist sociologists
who study the micro-social order emphasize the role of gender in everyday interactions
and the different meanings that men and women have regarding specific situations.
Subjectivity occupies a special place in feminist sociological theory as it seeks to
understand how women are socialized to see themselves through the eyes of men. When
women learn to internalize the generalized other, or the perspective of society, it is a
male-centered other that they must relate to. In other words, women, like other
subordinate groups in society, develop a bifurcated consciousness where they live with
both the reality of actual experience and the reality of social typifications. Other feminist
theorists question the reasons why a male-dominated sociology has categorized and
divided the world into micro or macro. Feminist sociologists seek to integrate macro- and
micro-level social phenomena. For example,Dorothy E. Smith (1926- ) discusses
"relations of ruling," "generalized, anonymous, impersonal texts," and "local actualities of
lived experiences."


Micro-Macro Integration


Chapter 14 Chapter Summary


Beginning in the 1980s there was renewed interest in the micro-macro linkage. Despite
the early integrationist tendencies of the classical theorists, much of 20
th
-century
theory was either micro-extremist or macro-extremist in its orientation. On the macro
side are theories such as structural functionalism, some variants of neo-Marxian theory,
and conflict theory. Conversely, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, exchange
and rational-choice theory are all examples of micro-extremism. Thus micro- and
macro- extremism can be seen as a development in modern theory, and indeed, many
of the classical theorists can be understood as having an interest in the micro-macro
linkage. A renewed interest in micro-macro integration arose in the 1980s.
There are two strands of work on micro-macro integration. The first involves
attempting to integrate various micro and macro theories, such as combining structural
functionalism and symbolic interactionism. The second involves creating theory that
effectively combines the two levels of analysis. This chapter focuses primarily on the
latter.
Integrated Sociological Paradigm
George Ritzer has attempted to construct an Integrated Sociological Paradigm built
upon two distinctions: between micro and macro levels, and between the objective and
subjective. This produces four dimensions: macro-objective, large-scale material
phenomena such as bureaucracies; macro-subjective, large-scale ideational or
nonmaterial phenomena such as norms; micro-objective, small-scale material
phenomena such as patterns of behavior; and micro-subjective, small-scale ideational
or nonmaterial phenomena such as psychological states or the cognitive processes
involved in "constructing" reality. These are not conceptualized as dichotomies, but
rather as continuums. Ritzer argues that these dimensions cannot be analyzed
separately, and thus the dimensions are dialectically related, with no particular
dimension necessarily privileged over any other.
Ritzer has utilized this integrated approach to look at the consequences of the rise in
consumer debt in Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card Society. He
attempts to integrate micro and macro by focusing on the micro-level personal troubles
it creates, as well as the macro-level public issues involved. Personal troubles are those
problems that affect an individual and those immediately around him or her. In the
case of credit cards, individuals are accumulating large amounts of debt, resulting in
prolonged periods of financial trouble. Public issues tend to be those that affect large
numbers of people. Credit cards create public issues because of the large number of
people indebted to credit card companies, which have given rise to bankruptcies and
delinquencies. Ritzer demonstrates the dialectical relationship between the personal
troubles and public issues created by policies and procedures of credit card firms, such
as deluging the populace with pre-approved cards, as well as targeting minors for
credit cards.
Multidimensional Sociology
Jeffrey Alexander has used an integrative approach that very much resembles
Ritzer's. Though the dimensions along which he differentiates the levels of social
phenomena differ, they mirror the distinctions created by Ritzer: rather than micro-
macro, Alexander uses problems of order, which can be either individual or collective.
Rather than subjective-objective, Alexander uses problems of action, which range from
materialist (instrumental, rational) to idealist (normative, affective). Despite this
similarity in analytical approaches, Alexander and Ritzer differ in the strategy used to
integrate the various levels of analysis. Unlike Ritzer, Alexander privileges the macro
over the micro. Alexander sees micro-level theory as unable to adequately deal with
the unique nature of collective phenomena and unable to adequately handle macro-
level phenomena generally. More specifically, Alexander's sympathies lay with
collective/normative-level-oriented theory. Only this form of theory can sufficiently deal
with macro-level phenomena while remaining coherent and without constructing
structural dopes that act at the whim of macro-objective level phenomena.
Micro-to-Macro Model
James Coleman (1926-1995) has attempted to apply micro-level rational-choice
theory to macro-level phenomena. As an overall integrative approach this is
unsatisfactory as it provides insufficient insight into the macro-micro connection.
Using Max Weber's (1864-1920) Protestant Ethic thesis, Coleman built a model
explicating his integrative model. To Coleman, these various levels of analysis were
related causally, and thus did not take into account feedback among the various
levels. Allen Liska has tried to improve upon this model by giving more attention to
the macro-to-micro linkage and to relationships among macro-level phenomena,
though the relationships are still causal. Liska also argues for the increased use of a
particular way of describing macro phenomena, aggregation. Unlike structural and
global explanations, which rely on poorly understood processes such as emergence, the
meaning of aggregation is easily elaborated.
Micro Foundations of Macrosociology
Randall Collins's integrative approach, which he calls radical microsociology, focuses
on interaction ritual chains, that, when linked together, produce large scale, macro-
level phenomena. Hoping to centralize the role of human action and interaction in
theory, Collins rejects the idea that macro-level phenomena can act, instead focusing
on the premise that, ultimately, someone, an individual, must do something in order
for action to occur.
Back to the Future: Norbert Elias's Figurational Sociology
One European of note, Norbert Elias (1897-1990), has contributed significantly to an
integrative sociology. Elias developed the notion of figuration to avoid analytically
dichotomizing levels of analysis. Figurations are social processes that interweave people
in relationships, creating interrelationships. Figurations are not static, coercive macro-
structures, but rather are conceptualized as relatively fluid processes of inter-
relationships among individuals that create shifting relations of power and





























interdependence. Elias makes relationships between people central, particularly
relations of interdependence, in contradistinction to individualistic and atomistic
approaches.
The History of Manners
Elias demonstrates his integrative approach in his best-known work, The Civilizing
Process, which has two volumes, The History of Manners and Power and Civility. This
work deals with the expansion of civility, or manners, across society. More abstractly, it
relates changes in the structure of society to changes in the structure of behavior. The
History of Manners deals primarily with the diffusion of manners (micro), while Power
and Civility deals primarily with the changes in society that brought rise to the diffusion
of manners (macro). Central to Elias's work are the changing levels of interdependence
among people. This was the result of increases in differentiation in society from
competition. Increased differentiation leads to increased interdependence, which in turn
leads to an increase in consideration for other people. This has a number of effects: a
transformation of control, from being relatively little and external, to an interiorization
of control by individuals, who self-police. It also creates what Elias calls a shifting
frontier of embarrassment created by a lack of self-control over impulses, and thus
changes in manners. These changes were diffused throughout society by the creation of
certain types of figurations. According to Elias, these figurations made it possible for a
king to emerge, and it was in the king's court, populated by nobles, from which the
habits and rules of the day emanated. Because nobles had long dependency chains,
Elias believed they needed to be particularly sensitive to others. The king's increasing
power, particularly through taxation and the monopolization of the means of violence,
also encouraged sensitivity among nobles. Thus the civilizing process is tied to the
"reorganization of the social fabric" through competition and interdependence. These
macro level changes made possible a set of relationships that produced wide-scale
changes in micro-level patterns of behavior throughout society, beginning in the king's
court with his nobles.

Agency-Structure Integration




Chapter 15 Chapter Summary


The agency-structure perspective is the European alternative to the micro-macro
perspective in America. Agency generally refers to micro-level, individual human
actors, but it can also refer to collectivities of that act. Structure usually refers to large-
scale social structures, but it can also refer to micro structures, such as those involved
in human interaction.
Structuration Theory
Structuration theory focuses on the mutual constitution of structure and
agency. Anthony Giddens (1938- ) argues that structure and agency are a duality
that cannot be conceived of apart from one another. Human practices are recursive-
that is, through their activities, individuals create both their consciousness and the
structural conditions that make their activities possible. Because social actors are
reflexive and monitor the ongoing flow of activities and structural conditions, they
adapt their actions to their evolving understandings. As a result, social scientific
knowledge of society will actually change human activities. Giddens calls this dialectical
relationship between social scientific knowledge and human practices the double
hermeneutic.
Actors continually develop routines that give them a sense of security and that enable
them to deal efficiently with their social lives. While their motives provide the overall
plan of action, it is these routine practices that determine what shape the action will
take. Giddens emphasizes that actors have power to shape their own actions but that
the consequences of actions are often unintended. Structure is the rules and resources
that give similar social practices a systemic form. Only through the activities of human
actors can structure exist. While Giddens acknowledges that structure can be
constraining to actors, he thinks that sociologists have exaggerated the importance of
structural constraints. Structures can also enable actors to do things they would not
otherwise be able to do. For Giddens, a social system is a set of reproduced social
practices and relations between actors.
The concept of structuration underscores the duality of structure and agency. There can
be no agency without structures that shape motives into practices, but there can be no
structures independent of the routine practices that create them.
Culture and Agency
Margaret Archer (1943- ) has criticized the concept of structuration as analytically
insufficient. She thinks it is useful for social scientists to understand structure and
agency asindependent, because it makes it possible to analyze the interrelations
between the two sides. Archer also thinks that Giddens gives short shrift to the relative
autonomy of culture from both structure and agency.
Archer's focus is on morphogenesis, the process by which complex interchanges lead
not only to changes in the structure of the system but also to an end product-structural
elaboration. The theory emphasizes that there are emergent properties of social
interaction that are separable from the actions and interactions that produce them.
Once these structures have emerged, they react upon and alter action and interaction.
Archer reserves the term "structure" for material phenomena and interests.
Morphogenetic theory focuses on how structural conditioning affects social interaction
and how this interaction, in turn, leads to structural elaboration. Archer sees culture-
nonmaterial phenomena and ideas-as autonomous from structure. In the cultural
domain, morphogenetic theory focuses on how cultural conditioning affects socio-
cultural interaction and how this interaction leads to cultural elaboration. Compared to
structure and agency, Archer asserts that the nexus between culture and agency has
been neglected. She suggests that in order to understand agency, one must
understand the context of innumerable interrelated theories, beliefs, and ideas that
have had an influence over it. Agents have the ability either to reinforce or resist the
influence of the cultural system.
Habitus and Field
Another major approach to the agency-structure linkage is Pierre Bourdieu's (1930-
2002) theory of habitus and field. Bourdieu sought to bridge subjectivism (the
individual) and objectivism (society) with a perspective
called constructiviststructuralism. Structuralism focuses on the objective structures of
language and culture that give shape to human action. Constructivism looks at the
social genesis of schemes of perception, thought, and action. Bourdieu wants to
examine the social construction of objective structures with an emphasis on how people
perceive and construct their own social world, but without neglecting how perception
and construction are constrained by structures. An important dynamic in this
relationship is the ability of individual actors to invent and improvise within the
structure of their routines.
The habitus is the mental structure through which people deal with the social world. It
can be thought of as a set of internalized schemes through which the world is
perceived, understood, appreciated, and evaluated. A habitus is acquired as the result
of the long-term occupation of a position in the social world. Depending on the position
occupied, people will have a different habitus. The habitus operates as a structure, but
people do not simply respond to it mechanically. When people change positions,
sometimes their habitus is no longer appropriate, a condition called hysteresis.
Bourdieu argues that the habitus both produces and is produced by the social world.
People internalize external structures, and they externalize things they have
internalized through practices.
The concept of field is the objective complement to the idea of habitus. A field is a
network of social relations among the objective positions within it. It is not a set of
interactions or intersubjective ties among individuals. The social world has a great
variety of semi-autonomous fields, such as art, religion, and higher education. The field
is a type of competitive marketplace in which economic, cultural, social, and symbolic
power are used. The preeminent field is the field of politics, from which a hierarchy of
power relationships serves to structure all other fields. To analyze a field, one must first
understand its relationship to the political field. The next step is to map the objective
positions within a field and, finally, the nature of the habitus of the agents who occupy
particular positions can be understood. These agents act strategically, depending on
their habitus, in order to enhance their capital. Bourdieu is particularly concerned with
how powerful positions within a field can perpetrate symbolic violence on less powerful
actors. Cultural mechanisms such as education impose a dominant perspective on the
rest of the population in order to legitimate their power.
Bourdieu's analysis of the aesthetic preferences of different groups can be found
inDistinction. The cultural preferences of the various groups within society constitute
coherent systems that serve to unify those with similar tastes and differentiate them
from others with divergent tastes. Through the practical application of preferences,
people classify objects and, in the process, classify themselves. Bourdieu thinks the
field of taste involves the intersection of social-class relationships and cultural
relationships. He argues that taste represents an opportunity to both experience and
assert one's position in the class hierarchy. These tastes are engendered in the deep-
rooted dispositions of the habitus. Changes in tastes result from struggles for
dominance within both cultural and social-class fields as different factions struggle to
define high culture and taste.
Bourdieu also applies his concepts to French academia in Homo Academicus. This work
is concerned with the relationship between the objective positions of different academic
fields, their corresponding habitus, and the struggle between them. Bourdieu also
wants to link the academic field to a larger field of power. He finds that French
academia is divided into dominant fields of law and medicine and lesser fields of science
and the arts. He suggests that faculty members within each field use their social and
cultural capital to compete for esteem. As a result, aspiring academics attach
themselves to established professors who control their intellectual production. Bourdieu
is critical of this system because it encourages conformity rather than innovation.
Colonization of the Life-World
Jurgen Habermas's (1929- ) theory of the colonization of the life-world can be
characterized as an agency-structure issue because his ideas draw on both action
theory and systems theory. The main premise of Habermas's theory is that the free and
open communication of the life-world is being impinged on by the formal rationality of
the system. The colonization of the life-world involves a restatement of the Weberian
thesis that, in the modern world, formal rationality is triumphing over substantive
rationality.
The life-world is an internal perspective on society conceived from the perspective of
the acting subject. Drawing on phenomenology and symbolic interactionism, Habermas
asserts that when communicative action takes place in the life-world, it involves a
range of unspoken presuppositions and mutual understandings that must be present for
it to take place. He thinks that free and open communication in the life-world, with the
force of the best argument winning the day, is our best chance at achieving substantive
rational solutions to collective dilemmas.
While the life-world represents the viewpoint of the acting subject in society, the
system involves an external perspective that views society from the observer's






























perspective. The analysis of systems is attuned to the interconnections of actions and
their functional significance. The system includes structures such as the family, the
judiciary, the state, and the economy. As these structures evolve, they become more
distanced from the life-world, progressively differentiated, and increasingly complex.
But they also gain greater capacity to steer the life-world by exerting external control
over communicative action.
Habermas asserts that the fundamental problem for social theory is how to connect
these two conceptual strategies. On the one hand, a social integration strategy focuses
on the way in which the life-world is integrated through communicatively achieved and
normatively guaranteed consensus. On the other hand, a system-integration strategy
focuses on the external control exercised over individual decisions that are not
subjectively coordinated. Habermas concludes that each of these two strategies has
serious limitations. The social integration strategy has a limited ability to comprehend
the reproductive processes at the system level, while the systems-integration
perspective cannot understand the normative patterns that govern the internal
perspectives of the life-world.
Habermas argues that the both the system and the life-world are becoming increasingly
rationalized. The rationalization of the life-world involves growth in the rationality of
communicative action. Social integration is increasingly achieved through the process
of consensus formation. The rationalization of the system involves the coordination of
activities by monetarization and bureaucratization. Habermas believes that these
instrumental system imperatives threaten substantive rationality by impinging on the
life-world and restricting communication.
Agency-Structure and Micro-Macro Linkages
One of the key differences between micro-macro and agency-structure theory is their
respective images of the actor. Micro-macro theory tends to have a behaviorist
orientation, whereas agency-structure theory places an emphasis on conscious,
creative action. A second major difference is that micro-macro theory tends to depict
issues in static, hierarchical, and ahistorical terms, whereas agency-structure theory is
more firmly embedded in a historical, dynamic framework.

Contemporary Theories of Modernity



Chapter 16 Chapter Summary




Most classical sociologists were engaged in an analysis and critique of modern society.
For Marx, modernity was defined by the capitalist economy. To Weber, the defining
problem of the modern world was the expansion of formal rationality at the expense of
the other types of rationality. In Durkheim's view, organic solidarity and the weakening
of the collective consciousness defined modernity. Simmel, while sometimes seen as a
postmodernist, investigated modernity in the city and in the money economy.
The Juggernaut of Modernity
Anthony Giddens (1938- ) has described the modern world as a juggernaut, that is,
as an engine of enormous power which can be directed to some extent, but which also
threatens to run out of control. The juggernaut is a runaway world with great increases
over prior systems in the pace, scope, and profoundness of change.
Giddens defines modernity in terms of four basic institutions. Capitalism is
characterized by commodity production, private ownership of capital, wage labor, and a
class system derived from these characteristics. Industrialism involves the use of
inanimate power sources and machinery to produce goods, but it also affects
transportation, communication, and everyday life. Surveillance refers to the supervision
of the activities of subject populations in the political sphere. The fourth characteristic
is control of the means of violence by the state.
Modernity is given dynamism by three processes. Time and space distanciation refers
to the tendency for modern relationships to be increasingly distant. Relatedly,
disembedding involves the lifting out of social relations from local contexts of
interaction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time-space. In such a
system, trust becomes necessary because we no longer have full information about
social phenomena. Finally, reflexivity means that the social practices of modern society
are constantly reexamined and reformed in the light of incoming information.
Giddens thinks that modernity has created a distinctive risk profile. Risk becomes
global in intensity and in the expansion of contingent events that affect large numbers
of people around the world. Our awareness of these risks gives us the sense of
insecurity implied in the term juggernaut.
Giddens argues that the reflexivity of modernity extends to the core of the self and
becomes a reflexive project of identity formation. For example, the body is subject to a
variety of regimes that help individuals mold their bodies. He also argues that intimate
relationships have been set apart from the routines of ordinary life (sequestered). As a
result, the reflexive effort to create a pure intimate relationship is usually separate
from larger moral issues.
The Risk Society
According to Ulrich Beck (1944- ), we no longer live in an industrial society and are
moving toward a risk society. Risk society is a form of reflexive modernity in which the
central issue is how risks can be prevented, minimized, or channeled. These risks are
being produced by the sources of wealth in modern society. Industry, for example,
produces a wide range of hazardous consequences that reach across time and space.
Beck also argues that science has become a protector of a global contamination of
people and nature. He suggests that subgroups, such as large companies, are more
likely than the governments to lead the way when coping with risks.
McDonaldization and the New Means of Consumption
There are four dimensions of formal rationality. Efficiency means the search for the
best means to the end. Predictability means a world of no surprises. Rational systems
tend to emphasize quantity, usually large quantities, rather than quality. Finally, formal
rationality relies on non-human technology rather than human qualities. Formally
rational systems have a variety of irrational consequences, such as dehumanization and
demystification.
Ritzer argues that the fast-food restaurant brings formal rationality to new heights. He
argues that the prevalence of McDonaldization indicates that we still live in a modern
world. Ritzer has also observed the rise of new means of consumption, such as
shopping malls and superstores, since the end of World War II. He defines the means
of consumption as entities that make it possible for people to acquire goods and
services and for the same people to be controlled and exploited as consumers. The new
means of consumption are modern because they are highly rationalized.
Modernity and the Holocaust
Zygmunt Bauman (1925-) considers the Holocaust to be the paradigm of modern
bureaucratic rationality. The perpetrators of the Holocaust employed rationality as one
of their major tools. Bauman suggests that the Holocaust was the product of
modernity, not a result of a breakdown of modernity. Without modernity and
rationality, the Holocaust would be unthinkable. Mass extermination required a highly
rationalized and bureaucratized operation. Bauman suggests that bureaucracies, while
not inherently cruel, are likely to be used for inhuman purposes. There is continuity
between the rationality employed in the Holocaust and the rationalization of the fast-
food industry today. Bauman believes that the conditions that created the Holocaust
have not really changed and that only strong morality and pluralistic political forces can
prevent a recurrence.
Modernity's Unfinished Project
Jurgen Habermas (1929-) believes that social systems have grown increasingly
complex, differentiated, integrated, and characterized by instrumental reason. At the
same time the life-world has witnessed increasing differentiation and condensation,
secularization, and the institutionalization of norms of reflexivity and criticism. A
rational society would be one in which both the system and the life-world were
permitted to rationalize following their own logics. However, in the modern world, the
system has come to dominate the life-world. While we may be enjoying the fruits of
system rationalization, we are deprived of the enrichment of life that comes from a life-
world allowed to flourish. Habermas thinks that solutions to many of the problems in
the modern world could be devised if the life-world had a better ability to steer the
system. Habermas is critical of the postmodernists for rejecting modernity.
Informationalism and the Network Society
Manuel Castells (1942-) examines the emergence of a new society, culture, and
economy in the light of the revolution in information technology. This revolution has led
to a fundamental restructuring of the capitalist system. The spread of informational
capitalism has led to the emergence of oppositional social movements based on self
and identity. Accompanying the rise of the new global information economy is the
emergence of a new organizational form called the network enterprise, which is
characterized by flexible production, new management systems, organizations based
on a horizontal rather than a vertical model, and the intertwining of large corporations
in strategic alliances. As a result, the nature of work is being transformed.
Castells asserts that the larger society is being reorganized into networks that are
capable of unlimited expansion and able to innovate without disrupting the system.
Castells suggests that individuals and collectivities whose identities are threatened by
this new order actively oppose this new network society. Castells also believes that the
rise of the network society means that the state is losing power vis--vis global capital
markets.
Globalization
Globalization can be analyzed culturally, economically, politically, and institutionally. In
each case, a key difference is whether one sees increasing homogeneity or
heterogeneity on the world scene. At the extremes, the globalization of culture can be
seen as the diffusion of common codes and practices or as a process in which cultural
inputs interact to create hybrid blends. Theorists who focus on economic factors tend to
emphasize the homogenizing effect of the expanding market economy. Some
political/institutional thinkers focus on the worldwide spread of standard models of
governance, while others suggest that local social structures make more of a difference
in people's lives than ever.
Douglas Kellner (1943-) states that the key to understanding globalization is
theorizing it as, at once, a product of technological revolution and the global
restructuring of capital. While the capitalistic economy remains central to
understanding globalization, technoscience provides its infrastructure.
Giddens emphasizes the role of the West and the United States in globalization. He
recognizes that globalization has both undermined local cultures and served to revive
them. He also suggests that a clash is taking place today between fundamentalism and
cosmopolitanism.
Beck defines globalism as the view that the world is dominated by economics and that
we are witnessing the emergence of the hegemony of the capitalist world market and
the neo-liberal ideology that underpins it. Beck is critical of this conception as being
oversimplified and linear. Beck sees greater merit in the idea of globality, in which































closed spaces like nation-states are becoming increasingly illusory because of the
growing influence of transnational actors. Beck refers to the rise of globality as a
second modernity characterized by denationalization.
Bauman sees mobility as the most powerful aspect of globalization. He argues that the
winners in the "space war" are those who are able to move freely around the globe.
The losers not only lack mobility but are also confined to territories denuded of
meaning.
Ritzer argues that there is an elective affinity between globalization and nothing. He
defines "nothing" as centrally conceived and controlled forms devoid of most distinctive
content. It is easier to export empty forms throughout the globe than it is to export
forms that are loaded with content. We are witnessing the global proliferation of
generic, dehumanized, and disenchanted forms.
Arjun Appadurai discusses global flows and the disjunctures among them. He uses
the suffix -scape to connote the idea that these processes have fluid, irregular, variable
shapes. For example, ethnoscapes are mobile groups and individuals that play an
important role in shifting the world. He also describes technoscapes, financescapes,
mediascapes, and ideoscapes.



Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and the Emergence
of Postmodern Social Theory


Chapter 17 Chapter Summary




The concept of modern social theory presents the possibility of a postmodern social
theory. Indeed, postmodernism has had wide-ranging effects on a number of
disciplines, including sociology. Because of the multidisciplinary nature of
postmodernism, it is necessary to think of postmodern social theory rather than
postmodern sociological theory, with the basic distinction resting on the various sources
of input in social theory.
Structuralism
Structuralism emerged from a reaction against the humanism of Jean-Paul Sartre's
(1905-1980) existentialism. Sartre assailed the idea of structures that overly
determine the behavior of individuals, of having actors without agency. Structuralism
emerged in the 1960s, and was based on the work of Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-
1913). Saussure's work was oriented to understanding the structures underlying
languages. Thus, structuralism is associated with the linguistic turn. Saussure focused
on the relationship between the formal, grammatical system of language (langue) and
the everyday usage of language (parole). Parole was of little interest to linguists, who
should be concerned with understanding the determinant laws that
govern langue. Langue is conceptualized as a system of signs whereby each sign may
be understood by its relationships to other signs within the system. This system of
signs is a structure, a structure that affects society by shaping relationships of signs
within the system and our understanding of the world. Saussure focused on the
creation of difference, particularly through binary oppositions (e.g., hot/cold) , which
have meaning only in relation to one another. The idea of semiotics extended the
analysis of sign systems to various dimensions of the social world.
Structuralism also influenced anthropology and Marxism. In the former case, the work
ofClaude Levi-Strauss (1908-) exhibits this influence. Levi-Strauss attempted to
extend structuralism to anthropology, focusing on communication. He reinterpreted
social phenomena for their effects on communication. Structural Marxism took from
structuralism an interest in the historical origins of structures, but continued to focus
on social and economic structures.
Poststructuralism
Poststructuralism loosened the moorings underlying systems of signs. Rather than
seeing stable relationships of signs, they saw chaotic and highly variable context-
dependent systems. In their view, such structures could not have the coercive power
over individuals that the structuralists attributed to them. Jacques Derrida(1930-),
perhaps the originator of poststructuralism, has argued against the notion of
logocentrism. By logocentrism Derrida meant the coercive, limiting effects of the search
for universal systems of thought that would reveal "truth." Instead, Derrida attempts to
deconstruct, or uncover, hidden differences that underlie logocentrism. At the heart of
the notion of logocentrism is the silencing of voices by intellectual elites in the creation
of the dominant discourse. Derrida argues for a decentering, so that previously
excluded or silenced voices may contribute. While the ultimate result of this is unclear,
Derrida privileges a movement away from any sort of silencing, a movement away from
the fallacy of universal truth, and movement towards a society characterized by
participation, play, and difference.
Michel Foucault
Perhaps the most recognizable figure associated with poststructuralism is Michel
Foucault(1937-1984). Foucault incorporated a variety of theoretical insights,
particularly from Karl Marx(1818-1883), Max Weber(1864-1920), and Friedrich
Nietzsche (1844-1900). Like Nietzsche, he was particularly interested in the
relationship between power and knowledge.
Foucault's early work focused on the structures that underlie the limits of discourse and
the ways in which discourses create "truth." Thus, much of Foucault's work focuses on
discourses related to the creation of the human sciences, such as psychology.
Foucault's work during this period ranged from investigating medical discourses and the
construction of normative understanding of people (normal versus pathological) and
ultimately into the problematic surrounding the emergence of people as both subject
and object of knowledge.
In addition, Foucault's later, less structuralist work sought to create a genealogy of
power, a type of historical analysis that does not seek invariable laws of social change,
but rather recognizes the contingency of history. Substantively, Foucault's genealogy
questioned the ways in which knowledge and power interpenetrate in certain types of
practices, such as the regulation of the body, governing bodies, and the formation of
the self. Thus, it asks how people govern themselves and others through the
production of knowledge. Foucault pays particular attention to the techniques that are
developed from knowledge and to how they are used to control people. For Foucault,
history is punctuated with changing forms of domination.
In Discipline and Punish, Foucault reinterprets the transformation of crime and
punishment, shifting the explanation away from humanistic concerns and towards the
need to rationalize the functions of discipline and punishment. Foucault attempts to
highlight the multivalent, multidimensional nature of this transformation by
acknowledging the relationship between the new techniques of punishment and
discipline with the encroachment of power throughout society. These "micro-physics of
power" were based on hierarchical observation, normalizing judgments, and
examination, and they were originally taken from the military. These find their ultimate
expression in the Panopticon, a structure designed by Jeremy Bentham(1748-
1832) for observing criminals. The characteristics of the panopticon are important,
because it allows for the shift in regulatory power to the individual, as they now self-
monitor their behavior. Foucault is also interested in the relationship between sex and
power. Here again he reinterprets history to show the ways in which medicine is more
concerned with morality than with sexuality.
Actor-Network Theory
Actor-network theory extends semotics to focus on material objects rather than just
symbols. Actor-network theory sees sign as emerging from the context in which entities
are located. Actor-network theory attempts to understand action, less from the
perspective of the actor, but rather in terms of its location within a network and its
relationship to non-material objects. From this perspective, non-material objects are
capable of action (as actants), although objects are considered inferior partners to
humans. The interactions of these components are viewed not as consistent and
patternable networks, but rather as a fluid combination of interactions at various levels
of social life that are performed by actors and actants. Actor-network theory breaks
down many analytical distinctions used in other social theories, such as micro/macro
and agency/structure, to help make sense of social phenomena.
Postmodern Social Theory
Postmodern social theory has received a tremendous level of attention and has
diversified to such an extent that it is difficult to make easy, overarching
generalizations, particularly since there are substantial points of disagreements
between various postmodern thinkers. Indeed, it is still debated whether
postmodernism represents a distinct phase in history or a new society of sorts, or
whether it simply extends modernism. Still another perspective sees modernism and
postmodernism less as competing periods of history and more as sets of principles that
critically engage one another.
In order to better engage the variants of this discipline, it is useful to distinguish
between postmodernity, postmodernism, and postmodern social
theory. Postmodernity refers to that which comes after modernity, conceptualized as
another epoch of history. Postmodernismrefers to cultural products, while postmodern
social theory refers to a way of questioning the world different from modern social
theory. Understood in this way, the postmodern represents a new historical epoch, new
cultural products, and a new type of theorizing the social world, one that emerged from
the acknowledgment of modernity's failures sometime between the Kennedy/Johnson
administrations and the Reagan administration. Postmodern social theory rejects the
ambitions and techniques of modern social theory, moving away from grand narratives
and universalistic, rational theorizing and towards a deconstruction of universal truths,
a decentering that is attuned to difference and locality.
Moderate Postmodern Social Theory: Frederic Jameson
Frederic Jameson sees postmodernism as an extension of modernity. In his view,
capitalism still dominates social life. Jameson makes the claim that while there have
been significant cultural changes, these are still the expression of the same sort of
economic structures discussed by Karl Marx. Thus, despite attempts by the postmodern
social theorists to use Marx as an archetype of modernist grand narratives, Jameson
uses Marx's theory to help explain postmodernity. These cultural changes represent
capitalism's expansion into the last uncommodified areas of life that is typical of "late
capitalism." Late capitalism follows Marx's market capitalism and V. I. Lenin's (1870-
1924) imperalist stage of capitalism. He also identifies cultures with specific economic








structures, such as postmodern culture in multinational capitalism.
Jameson characterizes postmodern society with four elements: (1) superficiality and
lack of depth; (2) the waning of emotion or affect; (3) a loss of historicity; and (4) new
technologies. A consequence of this is that people are unable to make sense of an
increasingly complex society. He proposes the creation of cognitive maps to help us
navigate the postmodern society, including its spatial dimensions. These maps bring
about a certain form of consciousness (e.g., class consciousness) to help us understand
our position within a complex system.
Extreme Postmodern Social Theory: Jean Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard's work grew increasingly postmodern over his life, and although
rooted in sociology, it can no longer be termed anything but postmodern. While his
early work sought to synthesize Marx's work and semiotics, he came to view Marx as
limited to the extent that his views replicated worldviews and an analytical orientation
antithetical to change. Rather than replicating this, Baudrillard proposed the notion of
symbolic exchange, involving an uninterrupted cycle of gift giving, as an alternative.
Baudrillard sees modern society as dominated by media, information, technology, and
their supporting structures. These create a code of production, leading to an explosion
in signs. Signs are no longer attached to anything real, but rather are self-referential,
imploding the relationship between signs and reality. Baudrillard also characterized the
postmodern world by simulations and hyperreality. The former refers to the creation of
simulacra, which attempt to reproduce reality. The latter is a description of the social
world in which simulations and simulacra are privileged, where they become real and
predominate.
Unlike Marxists, Baudrillard saw little revolutionary activity on the part of workers or
the masses; rather, he saw them as being increasingly passive. They are inundated
with signs, simulacra, and hyperreality by a media willing to provide the masses with
titillation. Thus, life is led toward nihilism and meaninglessness. Baudrillard promotes
symbolic exchange as an alternative to the consumer culture of contemporary society.
Despite this proposition, Baudrillard is not optimistic about the future.
Postmodern Social Theory and Sociological Theory
In many ways, postmodern thought is simply not commensurate with sociological
theory. Its aversion to grand narratives refutes much of what sociology has been and
tries to do. However, some authors have attempted to apply postmodern concepts to
provide fruitful sociological analyses. George Ritzer's coupling of Weber and
disenchantment in looking at the new means of consumption helps us understand the
processes involved in re-enchantment, such as the use of simulations and implosion in
Las Vegas.
Criticisms of Postmodern Social Theory
Postmodernism is criticized for being untestable, unsystematic, overly abstract,
relativistic, pessimistic, and without vision. Nevertheless, there is some question as to
what is the appropriate metric of success, as postmodernism has certainly posed a
number of important and interesting questions to social theory.