Contemporary Sociological Theory 1

Syllabus for Contemporary Sociological Theory

SPRING 2003

W Shrum

Catalog description. SOCL 7131 Seminar: Contemporary Sociological Theory (3) Prereq: Socl.
7121 or equivalent. Current theoretical perspectives in sociology ranging from structural-
functionalism to ethnomethodology.

Office 578-5311
Mobile 225-907-8139
shrum@lsu.edu

THEORY IS A MEANS, NOT AN END

I feel quite strongly about this so I state it up front. One of my oldest friends, my roommate at
the time, got his Master's degree in sociology and quit. Twenty years later he told me the reason.
"I learned a lot about sociology," he said, "but I didn't learn much about society." Sadly, I knew
he had a point. (I would myself like to eliminate the concept of "society" altogether, but that
would be an abstract theoretical point of the kind that I am trying to avoid.)

Put it this way: sociological theory is only valuable for the purpose of helping us to understand
the social world. Its development and articulation are of no value in and of themselves. Those
who disagree are still welcome in the course—you have a lot of company within sociology.

This course is oriented towards several specific objectives: exposure to a wide range of texts,
developing an ability to read closely, cultivating the competence to "discover" the theory in these
texts and learning to discuss it coherently. Basically, it's a course about how to read, in order to
gain useful ideas for your own work. Background information is helpful but not necessary.

Evaluation: Your grade will be determined by three factors: term paper (51%), class
presentation(s) (24.5%), and weekly memos/class participation (24.5%). We no longer have
formal examinations in theory, so a passing grade (B) in this course is our departmental
certification that you are competent in the area of contemporary sociological theory at the Ph.D.
level. The paper is 51% of your grade because it is important. A “B” is a good grade in this
course. Don’t expect to make an “A,”—but do try!

GRADING. "Incompletes" are discouraged but you may take a grade of "I" if you are already
well into your subject and need a few more days. Any final paper submitted more than one week
after the last class period receives an automatic penalty of one letter grade. Incompletes must
be arranged with me in advance and we will set the new deadline together. However, even if I
Contemporary Sociological Theory 2

agree to accept a paper later than that, a penalty of one letter grade will be imposed for each
month after the start of fall semester. (That is, a paper submitted in September would be docked
one grade, one in October two grades, one in November three grades, and one in December four
grades.) The maximum time allowed for an incomplete is the date the next semester's grades are
due, after which the grad school converts the grade to an F automatically. But under my system
it doesn't matter--because you'd be getting a failing grade anyway if you submit a paper in
December. (This has happened several times since I instituted this system but in general it
discourages extremely late submissions.). I do not consider this a 'free grade' seminar. I don't
know the overall (historical) distribution of grades in the course, but in one recent semester the
distribution of grades was 3 'A's', 3 'B's', 1 'C', and 1 'F', plus 3 'drops.'

The message here is not that this is a hard course, but rather, if you work at it, you will succeed.
If theory is not your strength, you may need to come in and talk to me on a regular basis: every
week, if necessary. But you can do it. You may not be able to write a four volume treatise on
Parsons (neither can I), but you can do the kind of theory I think is important--the systematic
development of ideas that help you to understand the social world. Generally speaking, my
philosophy of grading is that when someone with little aptitude for a subject works extremely
hard, comes to see me regularly, and does not suddenly develop an "interest" in the subject right
before final grades, they deserve an A. (Knowing that someone is working extremely hard is the
difficulty. It's not something you can just "claim" to be doing.)

Weekly Preparation

The assignment, with longer books, will usually be limited to 200 pages. Try to read a few pages
per day, and try to read it twice. It is a terrible idea to wait until the day before class to do the
reading. Reading closely is the key here. You will be able to grasp some central ideas with a
once-through, and reading once is OK for many purposes, but that's not the point of this
particular course. In general this is what you should do while reading:

(1) Identify and understand the important concepts used;

:(2) Identify the passages that contain the central argument/s (learn to pick out what's
important; distinguish relevant from irrelevant materials),

(3) Be able to defend why you think they are central (learn to construct an argument using
the text; be able to distinguish metatheoretical assumptions and arguments from the
core "theory"); and

(4) Be ready to discuss their plausibility and coherence.

Contemporary Sociological Theory 3

In order to accomplish (4), follow my ‘two remarks’ rule: it is standard for people to hear a
presentation and say ‘I have a question and a comment’ or ‘I have two questions’—be ready
when I ‘open up the reading for discussion’ with exactly that sequence. That way if someone
else uses one of your issues before you do, you have got one in reserve!

No profanity. No personal remarks. No jokes. Serious. Look at it as acting. Because it is.

PLAGIARISM is the act of claiming someone else's words as your own. This includes both
taking passages from unattributed sources and improper attribution, in which passages are drawn
from a book/article and used in your text without quotation marks or indentation. If one
sentence is taken from a book/article and inserted into your work (even if you change an article
or preposition), this is plagiarism. I will report it to the Dean of Students. Currently the penalty
is two years out. We have had a problem in the last few years and it needs to stop. This is your
warning. Of course, writing theory does require using weaving words of others into your own
arguments. If you have a question about a passage, or a particular phrasing you want to use,
simply ask me, or check yourself using the handy test at:
http://www.plagiarism.com

ATTENDANCE is not optional in this graduate seminar. You may miss one class during the
semester. Anything more than that will result in reduction of one letter in your grade for class
participation. Try not to be late to class.

PAGE MEMOS

Each week you should prepare a memo (not more than one page) summarizing the argument of
the material you have just read and your critique/extension of it. This is a rather specialized
form of "reaction" paper. Some will read their memo aloud and I will take note as well as
critique it. Others will not have the opportunity but will turn it in. Do not write your name—
write only your Social Security Number and I will grade them anonymously. I will return
without letter grades but with comments. Sometimes I assign particular chapters to each person
rather than a whole work. Occasionally we might write questions instead of memos.

The point of the memo is to boil down the argument to its essentials and then to react to it with
another brief argument. This requires that you step back, think, and pace back and forth before
writing. You will be trying to say what the main concerns of the piece were (what claims it
advances) and how these were supported. You must be ruthless and edit out the chaff, the
redundancies, the superfluous material. (I don't want you to just go on and on, hitting on the
main points by chance. I want to know what you think the main points are.) You'll get better at
this as the semester goes on. After the "boiling down" you should criticize or "react" to these
claims. The reaction should be your critique and/or elaboration of the author's argument.
Contemporary Sociological Theory 4

The key to this is the one page limit, making it a very simple assignment. To get the idea, read
some abstracts from the American Journal of Sociology or the American Sociological Review.
Then write two "abstracts," each one paragraph long. The first one summarizes what you read.
That is an abstract the author might write. The second is the abstract of an (unwritten) article
extending or criticizing these ideas. (You can turn one of these second abstracts into your final
essay!)

An even more important reason for doing this is that we will be doing some "close reading" in
the seminar. This is focusing on particular passages, characterizations, terms, types of claims.
Individual terms will become important., but there is a danger of missing the swamp for the
(cypress) knees. The best remedy for this? Each seminar participant should be prepared in two
ways: for a discussion of the "text of argument" itself, and, through these memos, to understand
the "gist," or overall thrust of the book. I will often begin class by asking you to identify the
central focus of the theory in a sentence. “What’s the theory here?”

Note: At some point I may tell you to skip the 'summary' and proceed directly to the critique.

RULES FOR MEMOS

These constitute a kind of inductively-derived list of pointers from reading past memos. None of
them are hard-and-fast, in the sense that you should never do them at all in writing your papers.
But this is an exercise. Don't do them in memos.

1) Don't use the first person ("I").

2) Avoid your own general opinions like the plague. It is not that they are uninteresting but
constructions such as "This article is fascinating" are irrelevant to the purpose. Constructions
such as "I support X" or "I find this interesting" violate both (1) & (2). What is interesting is the
next sentence: Why? Your likes and dislikes are important in informal conversation, but
absolutely unimportant and distracting in scholarly writing.

3) Avoid questions. Constructions such as "Is the author suggesting that...," and "why does the
author avoid" can readily be converted into simple declarative sentences.

4) Avoid extreme statements of the form "X cannot be done" because they are hard to justify.
Instead substitute statements such as "is unlikely" or "difficult in practice." Also avoid extreme
generalizations ("Men are aggressive'), substituting relational statements ("males are more
aggressive than females"--actually, even that is so non-contextual as to be almost useless).

At this stage of your career (and to the end of it, for most scholars!), the trick is to avoid
falsity rather than to make extreme, bold statements (contrary to Davis). You do not have
to make large claims. You have to make claims that do not seem objectionable to your
audience. (In some small way, your claims must be new, as well, but that is for
publishable articles.)
Contemporary Sociological Theory 5

5) Rule (4) may be turned around to your advantage. Whenever you can identify an extreme
claim or generalization, even a single counterexample constitutes the basis for an argument.

PRESENTATIONS

Disbelief is more complex than unreflecting assent. Scepticism is an acquired, developmentally

sophisticated state of mind. (D.T. Gilbert "How Mental Systems Behave." 1992. Amer. Psych. 46:107-
19)

You must present to the class at least once, selecting from the weekly readings below. The
written product should be a minimum of seven pages, typed. It should consist of a summary,
your analysis, and a summary of two book reviews.

The presentation should be an "expanded," more detailed version of the memos (just as the
course paper will often be an expanded version of the presentation). About half of it should be
devoted to an account of the arguments of the book and how they are made. About half should
be your extended reaction to it. Begin to become aware of the way arguments are phrased.
Become aware of the verbs that are used to state an argument, the ways that points are put
forward in sentences with phrases. Both parts are important here: your account of the
argument(s) and your comments on that argument. Beware of slighting your account of the
argument(s) because "we have all read it." We may move our eyes over the same words, but we
do not read "the same thing." On the other hand, I don't give any credit for a simple summary,
without a critique. I will time you (how many minutes did you spend summarizing? how many
minutes did you spend on your own response?) and I will review your written version for
balance.

Let me emphasize this again: Half of the presentation should be summary, and half should be a
critique. Let me give this guideline: the critique should be at least three full double-spaced.
typewritten pages. If you do a "memo-length" critique you might be given a second chance to do
a presentation, but not a passing grade. The oral presentation should be based on the written
text, which will be handed in afterwards. Raw notes are not acceptable. (Of course, you may
have departed from your prepared text to elaborate various points in the course of the oral
version.)

Outside readings are allowed, but you can do the assignment without them, providing a critique
from within the text itself. Exceptions to this might be (a) a work which is itself a description
and comment on original materials (you might want to refer to some of the original works
discussed), or (b) a theorist that might profit from having a look at some of his/her other works.
This is not required though. Ask me if you need help with other materials. You may refer to
readings we have already done (as a class) in your presentation.
Contemporary Sociological Theory 6

You should include a summary of two book reviews for this assignment. It may be of interest to
the class and it will help to get you oriented by reading what other reviewers have said. This
should be placed at the very end of your presentation and are not a substitute for your own
analysis. N.B. what the reviews say should be clearly distinguished from what you say about the
book. Therefore it is a good idea to write your ideas down before hunting the reviews. Book
reviews are not allowed in writing your memos. One easy way to find book reviews is to use the
Web of Knowledge.

Presentations should be no longer than 15 minutes, with a 10 minute minimum.. For most
people reading a typed page takes more than a minute, but you need to time it yourself in order
to determine this. (Last time people in the seminar told me that 7 pages of Times New Roman
(12 pt) takes 15 minutes.) Whether you read it through or talk it through, I don't care. Since
written material is "denser," I will insist that you read slowly. Points will be deducted if you
spend more than 7 minutes simply summarizing the book.

PAPER

Your in-class presentation will be the starting point for your class paper. Additional materials,
outside the scope of what we are reading in class will be necessary for the paper. You may begin
this paper as soon as you submit an outline or abstract of your topic and I approve it. Deadline
for abstracts is Spring Break.

If you fail to go materially beyond what you did in your presentation (or what we did as a class),
I will return the paper to you ungraded. The paper must be theoretical, and it must refer
substantially to one or more of the readings for this term. The paper may not be submitted (or
have previously been submitted) for another class. It may not be simply an empirical analysis
but it can contain empirical materials, particularly if you want to provide a theoretical treatment
(referring to some of our class readings) of your own substantive field of sociology.

Because of our focus on very recent (not just "contemporary") theory, the paper should be on a
publishable topic. Let's say it's a "first draft" of a publishable paper. Although you may not
have time before getting your Ph.D., it is beneficial to have a couple of papers which serve as
drafts to be worked into shape later. It will not be acceptable simply to use the course readings
for the paper--you must go beyond this. Make use of footnotes. Not many grad students do--it
will improve your paper by allowing you to take nonessential material out of the text & give a
better flow.

Length & References. In terms of length, the final product should be no less than 4000 and no
more than 6000 words of text. Since you will submit the final version electronically (in Word) I
will do a word count, excluding references & front matter. There is no way to fudge this, so you
should check as you are writing the paper (this is easy in Word—don’t include references in your
count). Use Times New Roman 12 pt (the standard font used here in this syllabus) with one inch
(left justified) margins all around. 4000 words is about twelve double-spaced pages of type--so
Contemporary Sociological Theory 7

you may find that you need between 12 and 20 pages (not including references). Reduction of
one letter grade will apply to papers with fewer pages or nonsense like wide margins and large
fonts. The format for references is what we call "ASA" (American Sociological Association)
format. You can find a PDF version at http://www.asanet.org/pubs/asaguidelinesnew.pdf

ASSESSMENT
Just to give you an idea of how the study will be graded, I reproduce here the form I sometimes use for myself when
I grade. It is not necessarily what I will use when I begin marking the essays (reserve the right of improvement
when you can!). People who followed the directions closely generally received high marks.

___ Statement of the general argument of paper

___ Outline (roadmap to the paper) in the introduction

___ Clarity in presentation of other’s work

___ Critique and/elaboration of work

___ Conclusion

___ Outline compatibility (degree to which paper follows approved / suggested outline)

___ Readability

___ Selection & use of references

Perspective

Medieval Arabic authors loved parody, even sacred writing. One famous comic author, Ashab
was asked why he did not tell ‘haditz’ (traditions of the prophet) as a good Muslim should? In
the traditional fashion, this telling is through the chain of tellers, so Ashab began “I was told by
Nafi, who was told by ibn Umar, that the apostle of God said, ‘there are two qualities such that a
man who has them both is one of God’s chosen friends.’” When asked what these two qualities
were, Ashab said: ‘Nafi forgot one. And I have forgotten the other.’

Consider the following quotations to get an idea what we are dealing with in contemporary
sociological theory.

we take it that a relentless articulation of aimless, pointless, absurd, fragmentary, passionate,

unique, playful, and transgressive discourses is valuable in its own right
Lynch and Bogen, "In Defense of Dada-Driven Analysis" 1991: 269

This book exemplifies why no one in sociology reads theory except for self-proclaimed theorists,
and many of them will find little of interest here.
Chafetz, review of Current Perspectives in Social Theory, in Contemporary Sociology 1992: 275
Contemporary Sociological Theory 8

Social theory’s problem today is not the proliferation of theory; it is not the absence of models
or unifying principles that specify causal links, within and between levels. Theory is the problem
of social theory today; that is, theory as it has fallen into the hands of theorists who think in
terms of models and unified theories.
Denzin, review of Handbook of Sociological Theory, in Contemporary Sociology 2002: 261

You may as well know now that this course is approached from a (not "the") sociology of
science perspective (call it a kind of skeptical pragmatism combined with social epistemology).
My view of the matter?

(1) There is no such thing as a consensual view of the meaning of "theory," nor is there ever
likely to be such a consensus in sociology.

(2) Hence, "theory" can be defined in practice as what people called "theorists" do, but is as well
or better defined as the guiding ideas used by practicing sociologists to understand the world. It
is never justifiable to argue against someone by saying "What is being done here is just not
theory." When you hear someone say this, it is primarily a rhetorical and strategic move.

(3) Our task is to figure out the ways in which these works are theory, or, put differently, what
are the theoretical elements therein.

(4) Because of (2) above I cannot argue that the something is "not theory." But because of my
personal experiences doing sociology and because it will not help you in pursuing a Ph.D. in this
department, we will not read much of the type of theory that might more accurately be called
"commentary" on the works of others. To illustrate, the following is taken from an abstract from
the lead article of a recent issue of Sociological Theory:

Marcuse's Reason & Revolution was the first Hegelian Marxist text to appear in English, the first
systematic study of Hegel by a Marxist, and the first work in English to discuss the young Marx seriously.
It introduced Hegelian and Marxist concepts such as alienation...When the book first appeared, it was
attacked sharply from the standpoint of empiricism and positivism by Sidney Hook, among others...Marxist
Lucio Colletti, the critical theorist Douglas Kellner, and the Marxist humanist Raya Dunayevskaya. From
the postmodernist camp, Jacques Derrida has discussed some the same themes as did Marcuse, especially
around the issues of negativity and difference. It is argued, however, that Derrida's reading of Hegel is
more problematic than Marcurse's, especially with regard to the project of constructing a critical social
theory.

You will appreciate that this kind of writing, if it is of use to anyone, is of little value to research
sociologists.

As Douglas Chadwick had it in a review of a nameless book on language use by primates:

The more the authors explain the less we understand. Apes certainly seem capable of
using language to communicate. Whether scientists are remains doubtful.
Contemporary Sociological Theory 9

One editor of Sociological Theory agreed in an editorial with this view of what has happened in
theory. But after publishing this editorial, nothing changed. Sociological theorists remain
committed to studying each other, rather than the subject for which they signed up: the social
world.

We need to focus on
WHY WE'RE DOING SOCIOLOGY
&
HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE THEORY

We don't need to focus on who said what.

Contemporary Sociological Theory 10

INTRODUCTIONS

(1) What theory courses have you had before?

(2) Which post-classic theorists did you read?

(3) What other courses are you taking right now?

CONSIDERATIONS

(4) Where will you read? space & context

(5) How will you read? tools & technique

(6) When will you read? time & energy

(7) What are your objectives? use & purpose

 SOCL 7131: Contemporary Sociological Theory
Spring 2004 W Shrum

Jan. 23. Syllabus & Philosophy.

Jan. 30

Davis, Murray S. 1971. "That's Interesting: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a

Sociology of Phenomenology." Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1: 309-44.

----. 1986. "That's Classic: The Phenomenology and Rhetoric of Successful Social Theories."
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 16: 285-302.

Jeffrey Alexander. 1987. "The Centrality of the Classics." Pp. 11-57 in Social Theory Today.
Edited by Anthony Giddens & Jonathan Turner.

Ritual incorporation of the classics.

Feb 6

Analysis of article texts. For this assignment you will need to select an article from
ASR/AJS/Social Forces and get it approved by Jan. 30. You will do a by-paragraph
analysis. The article must come from a major sociological journal.

Feb 13

Noah Mark. “Beyond Individual Differences: Social Differentiation from First Principles”
(ASR, June 1998). 1999 Theory Prize

"Culture and Cognition," Annual Review of Sociology (1997), by Paul Dimaggio, Professor of
Sociology at Princeton University.
2001 Theory Prize

Edward J. Lawler (Cornell University) for his article, "An Affect Theory of Social
Exchange," in the American Journal of Sociology 107(2):321-352, 2001.
2002 Theory Prize

Feb. 20

Smelser, Neil. 1995. Problematics of Sociology: The Georg Simmel Lectures. University of
California Press. 123 pp.

Feb 27
Ritual Disrobement at Mardi Gras. Shrum. Two versions.

Robert Wuthnow. 1987. Meaning & Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. University
of California Press. Chapters 1-5.

March 5

Crothers, Charles. 1996. Social Structure. New York: Routledge.

March 12

Rule, James B. 1997. Theory and Progress in Social Science. Cambridge University Press.

March 19

Heimer, Carol A. Lisa R. Staffen. 1998. For the Sake of the Children: The Social Organization
of Responsibility in the Hospital and the Home. University of Chicago Press.
Won the 2000 ASA Theory Section Prize.

March 26

Pierre Bourdieu. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.

Harvard. Pages 1-44.
Shrum. 1996. Fringe and Fortune. Princeton. Chapter one.
Anheier et al. 1995. "Forms of Capital & Social Structure in Cultural Fields: Examining
Bourdieu's Social Topography." American Journal of Sociology 100: 859-903. (Read
first 10 pages.)
Erickson, Bonnie H. 1996. "Culture, Class, and Connections." American Journal of Sociology
102: 217-51. (Read first 8 pages.)
Bryson, Bethany. 1996. "'Anything But Heavy Metal': Symbolic Exclusion and Musical
Dislikes." American Sociological Review 61: 884-899. (Read 1st 5, last 3)
Peterson, Richard A. and Roger M. Kern. 1996. "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to
Omnivore." American Sociological Review 61: 900-907. (Read intro & discussion)

April 2
Lin, Nan. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. 288 pages.
(Order: Cambridge University Press, 110 Midland Ave, Port Chester, NY 10573-4930)

April 9 SPRING BREAK

April 16

Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable Inequalities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

April 23

Emirbayer, Mustafa and Jeff Goodwin. 1994. "Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of
Agency." American Journal of Sociology 99: 1411-54.
Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. "Manifesto for a Relational Sociology." American Journal of
Sociology 103: 281-317.
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische. 1998. "What Is Agency?" American Journal of
Sociology 103: 962-1023.

April 30

Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third
World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

May 7 LAST CLASS. PAPERS DUE.

Agre, Philip. Networking on the Net.

Shrum, W. “Ten Commandments for Academic Life.”

 HISTORY OF READINGS, SOCIOLOGY 7131

The following books and articles have been used and dropped (though they may have been
picked up again) in Contemporary Sociological Theory since I first taught it in 1991. I am not a
theorist and would not have one as my friend. Working sociologists are exactly the people who
should teach theory.

1991
John Heritage. Garfinkel & Ethnomethodology.
Thomas Scheff. Microsociology.
Amos Hawley. Human Ecology.
Anthony Giddens. The Constitution of Society.
Niklas Luhman. The Differentiation of Society.
William Wilson. The Truly Disadvantaged.
Peter Ekeh. Social Exchange Theory.

1992
Arthur Stinchcombe. Information & Organizations.
Michael Hechter. Principles of Group Solidarity.
Ernst Haas. When Knowledge Is Power.
Anthony Giddens. The Consequences of Modernity.
Janet Chafetz. Gender Equity: An Integrated Theory of Stability and Change.

W Shrum. "Network Approaches to the Micro-Macro Problem", unpublished manuscript.

Randall Collins. "Interaction Ritual Chains." Theoretical Sociology. 357-66;
Edward O. Laumann & David Knoke. The Organizational State. Pages 1-35.
Rawls, Fuchs, and Mouzelis discussion in Soc Theory (1987, 1988, 1992)
Lawler et al. 1993 Sociological Theory and Whitmeyer in Sociological Theory 1994
Recommended:
Agger, Ben. 1991. "Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological
Relevance." Annual Review of Sociology 17: 105-31.

1993
Anthony Giddens. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love & Eroticism in Modern
Societies. Stanford.
Peter Blau. 1964 (1986). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction. (Intro, Chapters
Intro, 1, 3-6, 10 (171 pages))
2nd week of Coleman--Chapters 10-12,17,19,20,21,24 (190 pages)
Stephen Turner. 1994. The Social Theory of Practices. Polity Press. (xerox: 123 pages)
Mary Douglas. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse. Whole book. 128 pages.
(See also Iannaccone "Why Strict Churches Are Strong?" AJS 1994: 99, pp.1180-1211)

1995
Dorothy Smith. 1988. The Everyday World as Problematic. Northeastern Univ Pr. (225 pages)
Recommended: Symposium in Sociological Theory Spring 1992 pp 60-98
Joerg Bergmann. 1993 (1987). Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip.
Aldine de Gruyter. (153 pages)
MacKinnon, Neil. 1994. Symbolic Interactionism as Affect Control. SUNY. (188 pages)
Steve Fuller. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge. 1993. Wisconsin.

1996
James Coleman. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard. Chapters 1-8 (196 pages) &
Favell, Adrian. "James Coleman: Social Theorist and Moral Philosopher?" AJS 99: 590-
613.
Pierre Bourdieu. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
Harvard. Pages 1-44, 94-125, 169-79, 466-84 (102 pages).
Mary R. Jackman. 1994. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and
Race Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
chapters 1-3, 9 + chapter summaries
Anthony Giddens. 1992. Modernity and Self Identity. Stanford. (231 pages)
Stewart Clegg. 1992. "How to Become an Internationally Famous British Social
Theorist." Sociological Review 40: 576-98.
William Sewell. "The Theory of Structure" 1992. AJS p. 1-29
Pickering, Andrew. "The Mangle of Practice." 1993. AJS 99: 559-89.

1997
Niklas Luhmann. Ecological Communication.
Judith Lorber. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Harrison White. 1992. Identity & Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton.
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Jeff Goodwin. 1994. "Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of
Agency." AJS 99: 1411-54.
Uzzi, Brian. 1996. "The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic
Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect." ASR 61: 674-98.
Recommended:
1992 critique by Brint in Sociological Theory with reply & rejoinder
Connell, R.W. 1997. "Why is Classical Theory Classical?" American Journal of Sociology
102: 1511-57.
Lynch, Michael and David Bogen. 1997. "Sociology's Asociological 'Core': An Examination of
Textbook Sociology in Light of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge." American
Sociological Review 62: 481-493.
Burawoy, Michael. 1998. "The Extended Case Method." Sociological Theory 16: 4-33.

1998
Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. "Manifesto for a Relational Sociology." American Journal of
Sociology 103: 281-317.
Bruno Latour. We Have Never Been Modern.
Evans, Peter. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton.
323p
England, Paula (ed.). 1993. Theory On Gender / Feminism On Theory. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter. ((Selection of articles.))
Michael Hechter. 1987. Principles of Group Solidarity. University of California Press.
Pierre Bourdieu. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
Harvard. Pages 1-44.
Anheier et al. 1995. "Forms of Capital & Social Structure in Cultural Fields: Examining
Bourdieu's Social Topography." American Journal of Sociology 100: 859-903. (Read
first 10 pages.)
Erickson, Bonnie H. 1996. "Culture, Class, and Connections." American Journal of Sociology
102: 217-51. (Read first 8 pages.)
Bryson, Bethany. 1996. "'Anything But Heavy Metal': Symbolic Exclusion and Musical
Dislikes." American Sociological Review 61: 884-899. (1st 5, last 3)
Peterson, Richard A. and Roger M. Kern. 1996. "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to
Omnivore." American Sociological Review 61: 900-907. (intro & discussion)
Ulrich Beck. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Newbury Park: Sage.
Milner, Murray, Jr. 1994. Status and Sacredness: A General Theory of Status Relations and an
Analysis of Indian Culture. Oxford University Press.
Janssen, Jacques and Theo Verheggen. 1997. "The Double Center of Gravity in Durkheim's
Symbol Theory: Bringing the Symbolism of the Body Back In." Sociological Theory 15:
294-306.
Roth, Andrew L. 1995. "'Men Wearing Masks': Issues of Description in the Study of Ritual."
Sociological Theory 13: 301-27.
Recommended:
David Bogen. 1990. "Beyond the Limits of Mundane Reason." Human Studies 13: 405-16
Orbuch, Terry. 1997. "People's Accounts Count: The Sociology of Accounts." Annual Review
of Sociology 23: 455-78.

1999
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford
University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, and Nancy Fraser. 1995. Feminist
Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. New York: Routledge. 176 pp.
Czarniawska, Barbara. 1997. Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 234pp.
Plummer, Ken. 1996. Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change, and Social Worlds. New York:
Routledge. 244pp.
Seligman, Adam. 1997. The Problem of Trust. Princeton University Press. 231 pp.
Molm, Linda. 1997. Coercive Power in Social Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 316 pp.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1997. "Social Science and the Quest for a Just Society." American
Journal of Sociology 102: 1241-57.
Symposium on "Engaging Publics in Sociological Dialogue." Contemporary Sociology 1998,
435-457. W.J. Wilson, Pepper Schwartz, George Ritzer, & Donna Gaines.
Shrum, Wesley and John Kilburn. 1996. "Ritual Disrobement at Mardi Gras." Social Forces 75
(2):
Recommended:
Janssen, Jacques and Theo Verheggen. 1997. "The Double Center of Gravity in Durkheim's
Symbol Theory: Bringing the Symbolism of the Body Back In." Sociological Theory 15:
294-306.
Roth, Andrew L. 1995. "'Men Wearing Masks': Issues of Description in the Study of Ritual."
Sociological Theory 13: 301-27.

2001
Rochon, Thomas. 1998. Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values. Princeton.
Lofland, Lyn H. 1998. The Public Realm: Exploring the City's Quintessential Social Territory.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton.
Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual
Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press (Harvard University Press).Pages 1-133, 379-
83, 787-881.

2002
Melvin Pollner. 1987. Mundane Reason: Reality in Everyday and Sociological Discourse.
Cambridge. (150 pages). Out of print.
Hacking, Ian. The Social Construction of What?
Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.