Intro to Sociology - Rethinking Civilization (2023 PDF)

Page 1 of 34 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY Rethinking Civilization Dr. Gary Payne July, 2023 edition CC BY-NC-ND A WELCOME TO THE READER As I began my first college classes in the1970s, I had just returned from duty aboard an aircraft carrier in the combat zone during the Vietnam War. I didn’t understand...

Page 1 of 34 INTRO TO SOCIOLOGY Rethinking Civilization Dr. Gary Payne July, 2023 edition CC BY-NC-ND A WELCOME TO THE READER As I began my first college classes in the1970s, I had just returned from duty aboard an aircraft carrier in the combat zone during the Vietnam War. I didn’t understand my social world. At all. But I was ready to learn, for I had seen the consequences of ignorance, including my own. I was looking for answers and solutions. I found them in sociology. I’ve since visited dozens of nations, packing camera gear, peering through the lens of sociology’s perspective. This book emerged as a sociological guide to humanity. Page 2 of 34 At some point in our lives we all struggle with the same question no matter how selfassured we may seem to be. Who, or what, are…we? And what is our purpose in life? Let’s start with survival, since we are all on the same page with that. We’ll add more items later. Global climate change and increasing economic inequality appear to be your generation’s greatest challenges. Civilization is always at risk but never more than now. You readers of this text will have to re-think your own social world. For this, sociology is the tool of choice. In this class you’ll study the big picture: human survival on the only known blue planet in our galaxy. Sociology can put you in control of the facts of your existence, and by doing so, allow you to set a course for your own life. Sociology at the college level is courageous (if it is uncensored); it is meant to be a liberating discipline. It’s about using logic and an open mind to achieve greater freedom, fairness…and survival. When this class is over you will understand humanity – and your place in it - like never before. But, a note of caution: sociology asks questions which can be disturbing, especially to the centers of power and tradition in any society. Looking back in history, it is a wonder that sociology has survived as a discipline, having made so many capable enemies. The only possible explanation lies in its undeniable usefulness at improving societies by applying logic to evidence. Sociology is the scientific study of society.* And since we are a society with a record of great scientific achievements, it seems odd that few modern nations are less willing to apply sociological solutions than the United States of America. But, for reasons we shall examine later, the USA is a country that focuses almost exclusively on the individual for its answers. This tight focus on individuals has left most of our citizens with only a vague idea about what the terms “culture” or “society” really mean. That leaves those who accept the challenge of studying sociology an advantage in understanding humanity that relatively few in this nation possess. Good luck in your effort to understand your social world. Never forget that because you are a part of this social world you are really studying yourself. But in this case, you will be studying yourself from the outside in! It will take a while to get comfortable with the sociological perspective. It may seem the reverse of everything you know, or think you know. Be patient. There is a light up ahead. Ready? Scroll on down to Chapter 1. * These bolded statements often become test questions! Focus on them as you go. Page 3 of 34 CHAPTER 1: SOCIOLOGY EMERGES AS A DISCIPLINE Government of Cuba The unique idea behind Sociology was that the group was the basic unit of humanity, not the individual. For example, the behavior of this man perched on the streetlight could only be understood in the context of his surrounding social environment. And the same is true for everyone in the crowd beneath him. Sociology is an objective method of learning about the human social world. Instead of merely guessing, or taking the word of an authority, teacher, preacher, celebrity, parent or the guys at the local tavern, we use statistical research to get our facts. Page 4 of 34 We test our assumptions (guesses) by examining statistics or survey data to see if they are accurate…or not. And if we test a whole set of assumptions on a subject, we might be able to develop evidence for an explanation - a "theory" - about an entire subject area. For example: which social policies decrease the high school drop-out rate? This is a subject that requires a lot of testing to understand, because there is so much to know. So then…a theory is a systematic explanation of a subject backed up by a tested set of assumptions. Yes, it is a lot of trouble to go through to find something out. But otherwise, what do we really know with confidence? Using statistical evidence to get answers is something new for humankind. It may not seem new to us, because everyone alive today has grown up with science as an influence in their life. But in terms of human history, the use of the scientific method is only a few hundred years old. You and I are the descendants of apes that were walking upright roughly two million years ago [1]. By that yardstick the scientific method is a very recent development. We humans still do not make most of our decisions on a scientific basis. Our behavior is usually guided by a desire to conform, or by orders or opinions from the authority figures surrounding us. They dominate our thought processes. Much of our behavior is also influenced by old cultural myths and forms of superstition that cannot even be scientifically tested. We are, in many ways, still creations of our ancient past. Science is now at our service to answer life’s challenges, if we choose to use it. Of course, science does not always give us the answers we wish were true. Perhaps this is another reason we so often ignore science, at our peril. Yet we humans are gradually inching towards its logic because it provides real answers. HOW SCIENCE EMERGED FROM SUPERSTITION To explain the puzzle that is you (and me), we would need a time machine that would take us back to Africa at least 100,000 years ago. And we would need a way to enter the mind of these most advanced apes (homo sapiens) to see how well they were able to think about their own existence as they began to wander out of Africa. We can’t do that. And there is no written history going back that far either. But we know now that our ancestors scattered in all directions at that time (see map below). And they were burying their dead, drawing pictures on cave walls and living together in ways that separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. The story of human progress since then explains why you lived through the infancy period that killed most of our ancestors, why your cellphone works, and why you’re able to read this book even though you probably aren’t a lucky princess, king or priest. Page 5 of 34 Cave drawings and other artifacts of early humans show that humans wanted explanations about their own existence and rules of behavior to make life predictable and tolerable. It’s likely that anyone who could put together a great story that covered those bases and that had a potentially happy ending for their death (or a loved one) would be listened to. Religious symbols are found so commonly in ancient settlements and burial sites that it’s fairly certain that explanations and rules were in great demand. Over time, simple religions became more complex. MAP 1.1: THE TIMELINE OF HUMAN MIGRATION FROM AFRICA The Spreading of Homo Sapiens, (calculated in years before present day). Public Domain Image, Altai Leopard August 2014 The first comprehensive explanations are traced to religious philosophers, around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago in the empires of the Middle East. The religious elite of every continent were often the most literate citizens. Religious leaders spent less time in everyday work, and were free to contemplate human existence. Thus, synagogues, temples, churches and mosques gradually became the main intellectual centers of humanity. The unique religious stories and doctrines they created became deeply entrenched in every geographical area. Their written doctrines became sacred rulebooks, the foundation blocks of civilized behavior and thought. It is very likely that these sacred texts often placed their authors in a very beneficial light. Understandably, the priestly classes and castes were not appreciative of ideas that contradicted their unique version of reality. Religious beliefs tended to be portrayed as absolute truths: truths that allow no other explanation. But then any apparent weakness discovered in those beliefs posed a threat to the credibility of the entire religious institution. Religious leaders feared their regional critics and competitors, and often did what they could to eliminate them, setting the stage for the brutal religious wars that continue today. Page 6 of 34 These would not seem to be good conditions for an entirely new method of rational thinking to emerge. But that is what happened. Sociologist Randall Collins masterfully explained how and why the scientific method – and eventually sociology – came into existence.[2] I have summarized his explanation below. A few human tribes in what is now referred to as Greece lived in independent "city-states" between the borders of Middle Eastern empires 2500 years ago. They were fortunate to have the intellectual benefits of nearby religious centers without being trapped inside them or a larger government. Free-thinking citizens were allowed to brainstorm here. They formed the first secular (non-religious) schools and communities without a fundamental built-in bias towards faith-based explanations or political beliefs. These secular Greek academic institutions were clearly the forerunners of higher learning, our colleges and universities. Philosophy was the initial focus. Among the familiar names are Plato and his famous pupil, Aristotle. Aristotle formed a school to train intellectuals (educated thinkers). That is, to train people to think logically. Aristotle’s school gathered knowledge for its own sake, and thus this era is often called The Golden Age. We cannot call this science, because they did no scientific testing of theory. But the seeds of science were sown here, free from religious and political censorship. At the New Orleans Museum of Art: I am standing in the middle of an exhibit of hundreds of ancient religious symbols, figures and beliefs from all over the world. At the time these artifacts were created they were taken very seriously as absolute truths by their worshippers. Yet they have faded out over tens of thousands of years. One wonders how humans will view today’s religious beliefs ten thousand years from now. Page 7 of 34 This Golden Age was a rare moment. Religious and authoritarian powers soon redominated Greece. Superstition was back in control. But the Greek’s use of logic and reason had already escaped to other lands. Arabian thinkers like Ibn Kaldun kept the Greek’s free-thinking analysis alive during the centuries known as the “Dark Ages” when their ideas were nearly forgotten by European societies. Ironically, the next period of secular intellectual freedom sprang from religious universities that allowed some instructors to operate independently in cities like Paris in the 1200s. These schools were created to train lawyers and government officials. But some instructors began toying with ideas that contradicted the Church. Their students were hungry for new ideas. And once out of the box, these ideas raced across Europe despite savage attempts by the Church to stop it: scientists, philosophers and artists were frequently tortured, imprisoned or even executed. But the desire for higher education was so popular among the wealthy that this censorship in religious schools resulted in the creation of private schools for princes and merchants. And here - completely free from the influence of the religious institutions - many intellectuals turned towards “Humanism,” a movement and set of ideas which looked to humanity - rather than religion - to find explanations and solutions about the movement of the stars, about floods, drought and disease, about everything that interested, worried or fired up the imagination. This historical period is known as The Renaissance, beginning in the 1500s. The poorer citizens of Europe were left out of this educational revolution. But living and dying through three decades of bloody Catholic vs. Protestant Wars in the late 1600s (the “30 Years War”) forced them to recognize that organized Christians had profound disagreements within their own ranks. By 1700, a large fraction of Europe’s Christians had killed each other. The stage was set for a much wider acceptance of new explanations, a new way of thinking. Kings began to replace churchly advisors with secular civilian administrators. In France, Napoleon abolished the religious universities altogether by 1794 and put secular ones in their place.[3] Likewise, Germany forced its private religious schools under secular public control. With the power of religion limited by governments, the path was opened further for scientific discovery. It was no longer quite so dangerous (for example) to discuss in public the spherical shape of the Earth and how it revolved around the sun, a popular issue from the “natural” sciences. But the social sciences focus entirely on people, and thus were even more controversial. That focus on very sensitive political and economic subjects like inequality and slavery was far more threatening to the wealthy elite, and even to the more secular governments they often controlled. Page 8 of 34 Gary Payne 2014 Executed by guillotine in 1797, King Louis XVI was the last of the Kings of France. His connections to the rich elite and the Church could not save him from public anger over inequality, corruption and huge deficits that bankrupted his nation. His rule was followed by Napoleon Bonaparte, a champion of The Enlightenment’s focus on logic and secular education. Page 9 of 34 TABLE 1.1 THE TWO BASIC CATEGORIES OF SCIENCES Examples of "Natural" Sciences Physics, Biology, Geology, Herpetology, Oceanography Astronomy, Ecology Examples of "Social" Sciences Sociology, Cultural Geography, Political Science, Psychology, Economics, Cultural Anthropology And so, the social sciences could only tip-toe onto the scene after the natural sciences opened the door. It began with a book on economics; the free thinkers of the Renaissance had created markets with a need for experts on taxation. The author was Adam Smith, who explained the explosion of capitalism that was taking over Europe at that time in his popular book, The Wealth of Nations. It was non-controversial and pleased his powerful and wealthy readers. But when Germany became the first country in the world to make public education compulsory for all its citizens this created a huge pool of students hungry for knowledge about all human relationships and not merely about how an economy works. The social sciences really sprang to life. This period in the late 1700s was called The Enlightenment, a movement that continues today, a recognition of the importance of evidence and logic. Germany’s universities became the most respected in the world. A stampede of students from the USA left for Europe, for most U.S. universities were still dominated by private religious instruction. In fact, public education was not mandatory across the entire USA until the 1920s. This left many poor and middle-class citizens far behind while children from wealthy families were able to attend private schools. Psychology followed economics as the next social science to break out as its own independent discipline. It evolved as a means of dealing with individual victims of stress, a focus that would eventually make it the near opposite of sociology when it entered the scene. Anthropology (the study of traditional cultures) was launched about the same time in reaction to Europe’s fascination with tribal nations in the Americas. These vastly diverse Indian cultures had not been foretold in any religious documents. Prior to the discoveries of these tribes, European society had formerly portrayed itself as the God-given social order, an idea that anthropology often contradicted. Thus, anthropology had a revolutionary edge that was missing in economics and psychology. Sociology finally emerged as a combination of anthropology, politics, economics and even social reform! Yes, sociology had a split personality. Like anthropology, sociology was a study of groups and culture, but sociology leaned towards solving social problems through greater use of statistical analysis than the other social sciences. Page 10 of 34 MAP 1.2: USING LOGIC TO CONQUER THE DISEASE OF CHOLERA IN 1854 Cholera is a dreaded disease that can kill a healthy adult within three days of onset because its victims lose control of their entire digestive system. Millions of cholera deaths over countless centuries and across all continents were due to severe dehydration. These cholera epidemics were routinely blamed on the popular targets of religious institutions: Jews, prostitutes, homosexuals, witches and “the devil.” But halfway through the 19th century, British Doctor John Snow wisely applied logic to evidence and ended a terrible epidemic in London. Snow drew a street map of the affected portion of London and began putting a dot in the location of each known death of cholera. He detected a cluster of deaths and noticed that the dots seemed to be centered around the Broad Street water pump (find the P near the center of the dot mass in the map below). This led Snow to suspect that a particular water well was the source of cholera contamination. Checking the victims confirmed that it had been their primary water source. When the pump was condemned the epidemic ceased. John Snow’s use of logic was a gigantic leap forward for humanity. Page 11 of 34 This bar graph demonstrates a reality of life in our society today. It reveals the extremely high numbers of deaths Blacks experienced in the early days of the Corona pandemic compared to their proportion in the overall population. It’s typical of the type of information sociologists study to spot problems and develop solutions. Graph by CNN, April13, 2020 Fundamental to sociology’s solutions was a fair distribution of wealth and power in society. In those times it was an explosively “reformist” stance that is referred to as a “progressive” approach today. The rich viewed it as dangerous for it led to social change that supported the oppressed groups often despised by the rich. When the Nazi movement rose up in Germany that nation’s anthropologists and sociologists criticized Hitler’s ideas as illogical and racist. In response, Hitler wiped out the entire secular wing of sociology between 1933 and 1945. Many of the survivors fled to France and then fled again to the USA when France also became occupied by German Nazis.[4] Thus, for a brief period, the USA became a hideout for Jewish sociologists during the Nazi madness. Some returned to Europe after the war. But enough remained here to counter the uniquely conservative character of sociology in the USA, giving it a uniquely controversial edge and worldly influences that make it a richer discipline today. Previously, the University of Chicago had dominated the sociological discipline. It began in 1892 when John D. Rockefeller spent millions of dollars to recruit sociologists from all over the world. But this “Chicago School” of sociology was designed by Rockefeller to be very tame in its approach to social problems. He wasn’t eager to have his fortunes questioned. Nevertheless, the wave of fleeing Jewish sociologists to the USA turned the Chicago School towards a more courageous social reform stance. Since then, the USA’s top sociologists were recruited to our nation’s most prestigious universities: Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley and the University of Wisconsin. Today, sociology departments exist in every public institution of higher learning. An extremely mild version of sociology can be found in the nation’s high schools as well. Page 12 of 34 THE EARLY FOUNDERS OF SOCIOLOGY, IN TIME ORDER August Comte (1798-1857) The term “sociology” was first used by French philosopher August Comte, who argued in 1838 for a scientific approach to the understanding of social change. Comte’s excitement led him to boast that sociologists would unlock the secrets of society. However, Comte’s sociology resembled philosophy much more than science in the beginning. There were a lot of theories put forward, but not much scientific testing to determine their accuracy. August Comte Harriet Martineau Harriet Martineau (1802-1876) The first prominent woman sociologist to break through Europe’s censorship of female thinkers built on Comte’s demand for a scientific sociology. Martineau put together a set of objective research methods for sociology. Perhaps the most important was the “random sample,” which made it easily possible to survey a huge population with a relatively tiny sampling of citizens. Today this is one of the most important tools in all of the social sciences, not merely sociology. Martineau also did an excellent study of the difference between English and American society which became a bestselling book, but it was ignored by both governments, because it criticized slavery and the oppression of women in that period. Page 13 of 34 Public domain Herbert Spencer Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) The ideas of the wealthy and highly educated Scott known as Herbert Spencer do not appear in all introductory sociology texts, for he has become somewhat of an embarrassment to the discipline. His attempt to explain the differences between rich and poor segments of a society as merely a difference between well-adapted or poorlyadapted individuals is racist and classist by today’s standards. Spencer misinterpreted Darwin’s theory of ‘natural selection,’ claiming that the rich were the clear winners of the evolutionary process, and that the poor were the losers. His thinking was labeled, “Social Darwinism.” Spencer claimed that it would be dangerous to tamper with this evolutionary process by helping the poor, for society would just be propping up poorly-adapted losers. At the point at which England (mostly Protestant Christians) could have saved one million starving Irish Catholics during the potato crop famine of the mid-1800s, Spencer was asked by Parliament for his advice. He suggested that nothing should be done to help the poor, but that food should be sold into Irish markets. This meant that the rich Irish (who happened to be Protestant landlords favored by England) could survive while the poor Catholics died off around them, thereby “improving” society in the long term. Parliament took his advice which gravely deepened this historic tragedy for starving Irish Catholics. War was good for society as well, according to Spencer. War sorted out winners and losers on the planet. And because the poor always do most of the dying in wars, he said that war is a useful way of ridding societies of these “maladapted” citizens. His theory was - and still is - a convenient one to the powerful and wealthy. It allowed them to dismiss the needs of poor citizens and soldiers while justifying their own high status and lifestyle. Page 14 of 34 Thirty years after Spencer’s death, Adolph Hitler’s effort to create a “super-race” at the expense of Jews, Blacks, Gypsies and others would place him firmly in the Social Darwinist category as well. Many of the stereotypes associated with the poor, minorities or other less powerful people today are rooted in the belief that there is something inherently defective and possibly evil about these groups, with the opposite being true of the wealthy, or in many cases, the white race. We are often warned about the dangers of terrorism from foreigners. But in recent years most terrorist acts in the USA have been undertaken by our own citizens in groups that are rooted in the thinking of Herbert Spencer. They have killed more of our nation’s people than jihadists since the 9/11 attacks. Likewise, around the globe, right wing terrorism has tripled in recent years.[5] In 2021, a coup attempt failed at our nation’s capitol that was a popular cause of right wing rioters. As of this writing, over 500 have been tried, convicted and imprisoned related to this event. But Spencer’s ideas remain alive and well in a significant fraction of the U.S. population. Spencer’s hybrid theory was a serious misuse of Darwin’s original theory of evolution because his explanation for inequality ignored several factors: 1. The effect of centuries of brutal and oppressive tactics on the poor. 2. The control of economic policies by the rich that artificially increases their wealth. 3. That inheritance of wealth is not proof of biological or intellectual superiority. Yet Social Darwinism’s popularity among the wealthy was phenomenal. The rich appreciated having a “scientific” stamp of approval on their bloodlines, and were not anxious to admit the absurdity of Spencer’s spin on Darwinism. A few decades later, Hitler’s less educated middle classes were likewise attracted to the demonization of the poor, racial minorities and Jews in the 1940s. Today in the USA, Spencer’s theme can be detected in the writings and comments of various talk show hosts. For example, here is one full and unedited paragraph from Chapter 4 of The Way Things Ought to Be by Rush Limbaugh: The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig and her nipples. The poor feed off the largesse of this government and they give nothing back. Nothing. Page 15 of 34 Published in 1992, Limbaugh’s book was riddled with similar attacks on the lower classes and those who stood up for them in support. But it became the “best-seller” on the New York Times list. To further demonstrate support for Limbaugh’s perspective, President Trump gave our nation’s Medal of Freedom to Limbaugh in 2020. That high honor had previously been bestowed on Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other citizens whose contributions to society pointed in a very different direction. Gary Payne Spencer’s ideas helped trigger the flight of poor starving Irish Catholics to the U.S colonies after the Irish potato famine. As this grim Irish artwork (above) recalls, many died before they reached our shores. The cruel historical consequences of Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism has led some sociologists to avoid addressing his ideas in some texts. But avoiding an analysis of his message is dangerous. In recent years, Spencer’s ideas have become more popular; the number of hate groups across our nation is increasing. Yet on a different topic, Spencer did contribute a useful image of society to the sociological discipline. He described the organization of a human society as if it were a giant living organism. Spencer suggested that the various parts of society (labor, management, old, young etc.) may seem separate, but are totally interdependent. They may provide different functions, but they are all vital parts of one living social body, just as the arms and legs of an animal are ultimately interdependent. As a society becomes organized, it gradually becomes its own separate beast, a creature greater than the sum of its parts. On this, most sociologists agree. Page 16 of 34 Karl Marx Karl Marx (1818-1883) If Spencer was the champion of the rich, German-born Karl Marx was the fiery champion of the working poor. The contrast between the two men was blinding. Instead of viewing the rich as superior beings, Marx viewed the wealthy class as a collection of brutal and selfish thieves that made their money from slavery, corruption, deceit and inheritance. He lived through years when child slavery was common in Europe and the religious institutions were making fortunes out of the kidnapping and sale of Africans into the Americas. His response was to write essays that triggered revolutions all around the world. He corresponded with Abraham Lincoln and sent followers to join Lincoln’s efforts against slavery in the USA.[6] Thus, Karl Marx touched all of humanity in ways that few of us realize. Although Marx has been one of the most quoted authors in academic journals worldwide, the average U.S. citizen has had little or no contact with his controversial writings or ideas. There are two reasons for this: 1. Marx is the most famous critic of capitalism, the private ownership of the means of economic production. Capitalism’s private ownership mode has dominated our economic system throughout our nation’s history. 2. Marx is also the most famous critic of religions in world history. Capitalism and Christianity have been allies in fierce opposition to Marxist ideas. Since we in the USA live in a very capitalist and religious country, Marx has been heavily censored from school textbooks. High schools have been eager to avoid a clash with powerful economic and religious interests that fear his influence. We don’t see the face of Karl Marx on our postage stamps or money as in many other nations (examples at top of page). Even today, many authors are reluctant to write anything positive about Marx’s ideas because they fear being labeled a “Marxist.” Their fear is not merely paranoia. Many scholars, artists, actors and writers who favored Marxist ideas were imprisoned in the 1950s while others fled the country, as we shall see in Chapter 2. Marx predicted that extreme inequality in capitalist economies would eventually force the working poor to seize control from the wealthy owners of the “means of production” (the Page 17 of 34 factories, farms, mills, mines, schools, hospitals). He thought that these workers could then run these enterprises for everyone’s benefit, not merely for a few wealthy families at the top, but for the benefit of the whole society. Thus, Marx defined this public ownership of the means of production as socialism. Marx was a bit of a dreamer. He predicted that societies would eventually move beyond socialism to perfect equality. He defined this as communism, a classless society, sharing wealth and material objects in communities in such an elegant and selfless way that even government itself would no longer be necessary. It hasn’t happened. Some revolutionary movements have labeled their nations as “Communist” but these governments have never “withered away” as Marx had hoped. Marx would be dismayed at the brutally strict authoritarian control in a “communist” country like North Korea. But that was never what Marx had fought to create. Even before his life was over, Marx felt compelled to reject some of the activities that were taking place in his name. Nevertheless, the ideas of Karl Marx set western civilization on a jagged course towards greater fairness. Most democratic nations moved in the direction of greater economic equality. All the Western European nations, Canada, Japan (and, to a lesser extent, the USA) became an economic mix of capitalism and socialism. If you are reading this book you are probably a student in a socialist entity: a public college or university. These too are creations of “progressive” citizens who walked through the historical doorways that Marx broke open in the 1800s. So…what led Karl Marx to criticize the most powerful institutions in his lifetime? Born into a Jewish family, Marx learned to fear religion. His father, a Jewish attorney, was forced by Christians to convert in order to be able to work. His scholarly investigation of the world’s religions led Marx to think that they were not the answer to humanity’s problems. In fact, he felt that religions had become a major cause of humanity’s problems. Marx called religion, “the opiate [drug] of the masses.” He asserted that any escape from this world into Heaven was not only fictitious, but also lulled individuals into inactivity on issues that they should be raging against while still alive: slavery, child labor, hunger and inequality. It was a stinging attack on society’s two most powerful groups: religious leaders and wealthy capitalists. Religious leaders did not forgive Marx for his criticisms. They joined with the rich in chasing him from Germany. He left his job as a newspaper editor and fled to France, then later was forced to flee to England, where he continued to write until he died. Along the way, Marx met Friedrich Engels, a wealthy factory manager who recognized the genius of Marx and later bankrolled much of his written work. It seemed a strange friendship, given the anti-rich message Marx was putting out, but Engels turned out to have quite a passion for equality despite his personal wealth and a terrific intellect as well. Engels’ name was soon found alongside Karl Marx, as they co-authored books together: The Communist Manifesto, and much later, Das Kapital (Translation: “The Money.”) Page 18 of 34 In front of the Presidential Palace in Quito, Ecuador, year 2001 On Plaza Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela, year 2002 Photos by Gary Payne Central Bogata, Colombia, year 2000 The ideas of Karl Marx encouraged the oppressed groups of all nations to demand human rights and fair pay. After three successful socialist revolutions (Mexico (1910), Cuba (1959) and Nicaragua (1979), capitalist governments in South and Central America began using armored vehicles with water cannons, machine guns and massive front ramming blades to chase off human rights protesters with socialist ideas. Page 19 of 34 Public Domain Friedrich Engels Engels secretly ghost-wrote some pieces that he had Marx sign as author, probably out of fear of what might happen to him. But this pair of social critics left a volume of written material that has been a thorn in the side of powerful interests ever since. Their “follow the money” approach to understanding all social arrangements cast a new light on issues from infant mortality to homicide. Marx & Engels’ approach is known in sociology today as “conflict theory.” The social safety net of government programs that exists in Europe and to a lesser extent in the USA (Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, etc.) are among many positive outcomes that flowed - in part – because of their voices. Max Weber (1864-1920) Many sociology texts portray German sociologist Weber’s ideas as contrary to Karl Marx noting that Weber’s life was, “a debate with the ghost of Karl Marx” (who was born a half century earlier). Nevertheless, Weber actually had a deep respect for Marx’s writings. Weber’s father was a prominent politician who huddled in secret meetings with wealthy German manufacturers in the family home. In this environment, Weber quickly learned the hidden realities of how the wealthy control from behind the scenes. His was an upbringing with revelations very similar to that of Marx. But unlike Marx, Weber decided that society could best be understood by a “follow the ideas” approach, rather than “follow the money.” Weber concentrated on the effects of powerful cultural ideas – especially religious ideas. Since these ideas are held to be sacred, they are rarely questioned, and therefore may be passed on across countless human generations, profoundly influencing the behavior and beliefs of those societies for centuries. He claimed that ideas control society, not merely wealth as Marx had thought. Page 20 of 34 Max Weber Public Domain Weber pointed out that each culture on the planet evolves over time with its own unique set of ideas that explain creation, life and death. For Weber, the force that determines how a society operates is that particular set of ideas that originated in its cultural history. In his popular book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber claimed that capitalism was an outcome of the values found in the ideology of non-Catholic Christians (commonly referred to as “Protestants”). Their dominant values were hard work, independence and honesty. He suggested that capitalism would not have developed without these Protestant values. This claim was a counter argument to Marx, who had claimed that religious ideas were merely tools that wealthy capitalists used to enslave the poor. The other great debate Weber had with Marx focused on the wisdom of creating a society based on equality, as Marx had suggested would be good and inevitable. Weber felt that ending exploitation of the poor was a worthy goal, but one that would require huge government bureaucracies to achieve, and this might become even more of a controlling menace for individuals than inequality. Of course, Weber’s argument was welcomed by wealthy and powerful people who did not want to pay higher taxes for government support of the poor, but there was also some truth to it. The “withering away” of governments in socialist/communist countries that Marx had predicted never occurred. Certainly, these socialist governments (as in Cuba) are typically very large. Weber might say, “ominously large.” Page 21 of 34 The “ghost” of Karl Marx might reply to Weber that corporate capitalism has also created monstrous and ever-expanding bureaucracies like Wal-Mart, Amazon, Exxon and McDonald’s. And furthermore, these capitalist behemoths force us to create giant government bureaucracies at the same time. Otherwise, how else can massive corporations be regulated and controlled if not by large governments? In the last half century, moderately socialistic and democratic nations have emerged across Europe, in Canada and New Zealand. These nations run their economies with extensive government control and benefits – yet they have seen huge improvements in the living standards of their people - while maintaining individual freedoms. This has taken the bite out of Weber’s argument. Still, Weber’s confrontation with the ideas of Karl Marx has tempered sociology ever since. Emile Durkheim Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) Until the French sociologist/anthropologist Emile Durkheim arrived on the scene, sociology was just a random collection of thinkers with only a focus on groups and institutions. But that changed dramatically after Durkheim, the first sociological researcher, completed his statistical study of suicide and revealed his conclusions to the academic world. His method of scientific testing of social theories became the core research technique employed by sociologists. Durkheim understood that the key to the scientific method (for any science) is to look for conditions under which something happens and then contrast this with conditions under Page 22 of 34 which it does not happen. In sociology, we do this as we search to discover universal laws that govern social behavior, and might even explain it. Identifying those laws allows us to find solutions to some very serious social problems. Previous to Durkheim’s study of suicide, human behavior was considered to be determined primarily within the mind of the individual. This was the basic idea behind the discipline of early psychology. Christian doctrine is also deeply rooted in similar thinking with its concepts of individual salvation/damnation, which depended only on the free will or soul of the individual. The social environment around the individual was generally ignored as irrelevant… still a common perspective today in the USA. But Durkheim’s research, published in his book Suicide, was a landmark study that jarred the academic and religious communities out of complacency. He demonstrated that suicide – seemingly the most individual act one could ever imagine (because it is an act performed by an individual to that same individual, usually without consulting others) – was not merely about the individual suicide victim’s mind. For example, in India, Hindu women at that time were expected to voluntarily burn alive on their dead husband’s cremation fire. In Denmark, soldiers thought it a disgrace to die in bed of old age. Among the Ashanti of Africa, the king’s servants were expected to die when or before the king died. Serious shame among the Japanese commonly led them to disembowel themselves with a knife in order to recover their pride. In the USA, economic failure often led wealthy individuals to suicide. This was confirmed during the 1929 stock market crash in a human hailstorm of rich men jumping off the roofs of New York skyscrapers. The USA and Europe also had a unique tradition of suicide related to romantic love failures not found in many cultures. It should have been obvious to the educated observers that suicide was primarily a cultural event but they had cast their research net too narrowly. Durkheim expanded his research on suicide across cultures to compare rates, reasons and methods of suicide. He found that all three varied wildly from culture to culture. This triggered a giant leap in understanding of the origins of this tragic behavior. For some researchers, Durkheim’s compelling global summary of rates, reasons and methods of suicide would have been enough to make the point: The age-old focus on individuals for understanding human behavior was insufficient. But Durkheim didn’t stop there. He also wanted to explain the variation in suicide rates within groups too. Durkheim found - by examining medical records and death certificates in European Nations - that the rates of suicide varied in Jewish, Catholic and Protestant populations. If suicide was purely an individual act, religious affiliation of the victims should not have influenced the rates of suicide. Yet it did, and it did so consistently in predictable patterns that left no doubt. Page 23 of 34 Open source photo This 19th Century painting symbolizes the Sati custom of suicide for women whose husbands had died. Although it became illegal in the 1800s it continued well into 20th century India. Sati makes no sense to my readers in the USA because they’ve been shaped by a different culture. Durkheim found that the reasons, the rates and the methods of suicide are all determined primarily by culture, not by individuals. But how can social factors like religious affiliation determine the likelihood of suicide for an individual? Durkheim theorized that an individual’s mind and behavior are molded by social ties to others in intimate groups. The interpersonal relationships that develop are influenced by the unique traditions of each faith. Those influences are so Page 24 of 34 strong that we can measure the group-membership effects on the probabilities of an individual’s suicide. Our various cultural and group memberships determine our reasons, rates and methods of various behaviors, including suicide. It’s baked in. Among orthodox Jews was the notion of collective salvation, a concept that strengthened their social ties. They needed to stay close. And the long history of hostility towards Jews by the surrounding Christian faiths had also encouraged dependence between Jews. By necessity, this dependence on other Jews, and working together became a core tradition. This gave Jews the lowest suicide rates. But for Protestants, a spirit of independence had emerged as a reaction to the rigid rules and excesses of the Catholic Church. This independence may have set Protestants free to worship as they chose, but it led to fewer and weaker social ties, and the highest rate of suicide among the religions that Durkheim studied. The strength of Catholic social ties ranged somewhere in between the two other faiths. Catholic suicide rates likewise fell predictably into the middle category. All these factors led to Durkheim’s “social ties” proposition: The stronger and more plentiful an individual’s social ties are, the less the likelihood of suicide. And when tested statistically by examining death certificates, it held up in nation after nation. And it was easily adapted to family life too. Single adults had higher suicide rates than married adults. Married adults without children had higher rates than married adults with children. The more and stronger ties to others were, the more protected individuals were from suicide. If a seemingly individual act like suicide is not an individual act…then…what act is? Perhaps none are. We are profoundly social animals, more than we are willing to admit, and more than our cultural institutions are willing to recognize. Durkheim’s striking conclusion was that even what seems to be individual behavior, is actually determined by our socio-cultural environment. At least, the main determinants of behavior are at the group level, and not at the individual level. Once again, sociology found itself contradicting the basic notions of Western civilization. For if it was the social environment that determined most of our behavior, how could anyone be blamed for inappropriate or “criminal” acts, and how could anyone be applauded for “good” behavior? How could prison be justified? How could immense fortunes be justified, especially in a country with substantial poverty? Neither the prince nor the pauper truly deserved the fate they had been handed, for their fates were not primarily of their own making. The same contradiction applied to the religious concept of the sinner and the saint, regarding salvation and damnation. There were far-reaching social implications for Durkheim’s findings. He opened a door of inquiry that has never closed, although many have shoved hard against it. Page 25 of 34 These social influences go unnoticed by the individual. They surround us from our first childhood memories; we as individuals tend to take them for granted. The effect is nearly invisible to the vast majority of citizens unless they study it statistically. Very few of us view our social world in this scientific way. Gary Payne 2011, Ethiopia Durkheim’s “social ties” perspective becomes apparent when people from individualistic cultures visit people from co-operative cultures like these Hammer tribe children in East Africa. The amazing closeness of their relationships makes them act more like a single organism than separate individuals and this has profound consequences for their behavior and sense of “self.” Durkheim’s research demonstrated that socio-cultural factors are the primary determinants of human behavior. Without Durkheim’s addition to sociology, a purely sociological discipline might not have developed. The great sociological thinkers might just have been absorbed by other disciplines with which they were closely connected already. Armed with Durkheim’s model of statistical analysis, sociological researchers began searching for other statistical evidence of the effect of social and cultural factors on individual behaviors. Page 26 of 34 Homicide Rates per 100K by Nation 2023 Source: World Population Review Figures are the most recent and are rounded. El Salvador U.S. Virgin Islands Jamaica Mexico Brazil Colombia USA Chile Japan 52 49 43 29 27 25 5 4 0.2 The cross-cultural homicide statistics above demonstrate the impossibility of explaining human behavior by differences within individuals, like mental illness. The 260-fold difference can only be explained by what is happening in each nation’s culture. Nearly a century later, sociologists have found that there are dozens of measurable social conditions (like the level of inequality, or education) that can be statistically corelated to individual outcomes, from homicide rates to infant mortality rates. This knowledge has led most modern societies - notably in Europe, Canada and Japan - to redesign government policy in ways that have encouraged individuals to act in a more positive manner. This has led to better health, lower crime rates, and greater equality than is found in the USA. The shift towards sociological policies has been delayed in the USA, with significant consequences (see Table1.1 below). The USA has fallen behind the other modern industrial democratic nations on several social indicators. Even freedom has been curtailed in the USA, as our nation maintains the highest rate of incarceration in world history. [8] Durkheim’s research has yet to be fully applied to our nation’s social policy. TABLE 1.1 BASIC SOCIAL INDICATORS OF RICH NATIONS : YEAR 2021 The USA has highest per capita income, yet poorest outcomes Source: CIA World Factbook* USA FRANCE U.K GERM JAPAN CANADA SWEDEN AUST Per Capita Income $60K 42K 44K 51K 41K 46K 50K 49K Infant Mortality per 100K Live Births 520 320 380 320 190 440 230 300 Life Expectancy 80.6 82.6 81.9 1 86.0 83.8 82.4 83.0 AIDS cases per 1000 6 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 Obese Population % 36 22 28 22 4 29 21 29 *Not every nation reports this data every year; the most recent year is reported here. These figures are rounded. Page 27 of 34 20th Century Sociologists in the USA, in Time Order Jane Addams (1860-1935) The founders of sociology were great thinkers and theoreticians. But for sociological principles to be placed into practice, social activists were required to step forward and engage the political process. This can be tough work, even dangerous work. Most citizens are not willing to participate in it. A shining exception was Jane Addams. Addams had withstood a tough childhood. Her mother passed away when she was two years old. She understood hard times and the effect of personal disadvantage. Addams became a determined student and somehow worked her way into medical school in Philadelphia despite her early troubles. On a visit to England, Addams noticed that the poor of that nation were better treated than in the United States, where little or no social safety net existed. Addams opened Hull House in Chicago for poor immigrants that were flooding into the USA at that time from Europe. Hull House was not merely a poorhouse, however. She used it as a thinktank for progressive ideas. There, intellectuals gathered to plan legislative campaigns that ended child slave labor practices and other social abuses. Addams won a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts in 1931. She published written pieces in what had been a male-dominated American Sociological Review and continued her work as a tireless and successful lobbyist for the rights of children. She joined other sociologists to speak out forcefully against USA involvement in World War 1 which made her a controversial figure. . Jane Addams Public Domain W.E.B. Du Bois Page 28 of 34 W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963) The first person of color to earn a doctoral degree at prestigious Harvard University was William DuBois, an African American sociologist from Massachusetts. Dr. DuBois went on to teach at a number of universities, but discovered along the way that his degree did not protect him from racial discrimination. He was the only black board member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which – ironically – was at first controlled by whites. Yet his sharp mind led him to become the editor of its widely-read journal Crisis for 20 years. DuBois became a famous critic of World War 1 (as did Jane Addams), which he claimed was merely a battle among rich countries to see which won the right to steal the fantastically abundant natural resources of Africa. Du Bois was truly global in his outlook; he spent his last years in Africa. He died at the age of 95 while traveling through Ghana. By then Du Bois had renounced his U.S. citizenship as a reaction to the treatment he had faced here in the land of his birth. Public Domain C. Wright Mills C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) One of the most vocal critics of economic inequality arrived on the scene at a time when it was dangerous to speak out against the system in the USA. A man of enormous personal courage, C. Wright Mills published The Power Elite in 1957, which provided considerable evidence that the nation’s foreign policy was being controlled - not by voters - but behind the scenes by large weapons manufacturers and top military leaders. The nation was going through a wave of rabid anti-communism at the time, violating the free speech rights of dozens of actors, writers, publishers, movie directors and producers that had been critical of greed among the rich. Writing The Power Elite made Mills a target for harassment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Page 29 of 34 Unlike many social critics in the 1950s, Mills was never imprisoned despite his research which was designed to alert the public to a similar hidden agenda to that which Marx and Engels had warned about earlier. Mills’ warning was soon supported by President Dwight Eisenhower, a former General in the U.S. Army and Commander of U.S. forces in World War II. His final speech as President startled the public by suggesting that the “military industrial complex” had indeed grown too powerful for the good of the nation. It was like a page from Mills’ book, which Eisenhower had undoubtedly read. Below is a quote from President Eisenhower's famous speech: “We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist…” [9] Public Domain As a conservative Republican - and former Commander in Chief of all Allied forces in World War I I – Dwight Eisenhower seemed an unlikely supporter of the themes in The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills. But as President, he had witnessed war profiteering and undue corporate influence in governmental affairs. Page 30 of 34 However, C. Wright Mills is best known for another written work he produced: The Sociological Imagination, in which he encouraged his students to peer through the haze of their own limited personal experience. Mills wanted us to see far more than our own families, schools, churches and communities ever intended that we see; to become truly aware of the wider world, of points of view that challenge the sacred beliefs we were raised with, and to find creative new ways to make the world a better place. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929 - 1968) The youngest person ever to receive a Nobel Peace prize was the famous civil rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King jr. Although he is often regarded primarily as a religious figure, Dr. King’s background in sociology at Morehouse University in Atlanta - where he earned his Bachelor’s degree – is less well known. King was looking for a method to make peaceful changes against a backdrop of intense white resistance to black equality. Courtesy Marion S. Trikosko, Flickr Public Domain Dr. King (center) chats with Malcolm X before a news conference in 1964. Both of these gifted civil rights leaders were assassinated by 1968; neither man had reached 40 years of age. Dr. King traveled to India in the 1950s to study the techniques of “non-violent noncooperation” which had been used by social activist Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi had used labor strikes and massive peaceful marches to win independence from Britain without significant bloodshed. By the time blacks in the USA began demanding civil rights in the early 1960s, King was a seasoned sociologist who understood how inequality could be Page 31 of 34 peacefully challenged. He became the dominant leader of the civil rights movement that shifted the course of our nation’s history towards freedom. King’s peaceful marches – and the Montgomery bus boycott he helped to engineer - were often met with violence by white supremacist groups and massive brutal arrests by poorly educated police. These glaring episodes of open racism became a national embarrassment as they were filmed by reporters and aired on television. This triggered a worldwide public outpouring of support for the civil rights movement. Landmark civil rights laws were then passed that many U.S. citizens point to as the most important achievement of the 20th century. It might not have had a chance without Dr. King’s willingness to reach outside his own culture’s ideas for a progressive solution borrowed from India. Both Dr. King, and his mentor Gandhi, lived to see enormous social progress as a result of their activism. But both were assassinated soon afterwards. Dr. King was one of several black civil rights leaders who were gunned down in the 1960s; he was shot to death on the balcony of a motel in Memphis, Tennessee. His legacy is very much alive. SOCIOLOGY’S MAIN THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES The first sociological pioneers like Herbert Spencer and Karl Marx offered “grand” theories” (we call these “theoretical perspectives”) that covered more social phenomena than could be tested at one time. Today most modern sociological researchers keep their research practical and scientific by testing parts of these perspectives, one piece at a time. This allows objectivity without losing track of the basic point of view. Some examples: A Functionalist-oriented sociologist might survey participants in a motorcycle gang to see what function extreme drug use rituals play in the gang’s leadership roles. A Conflict-oriented sociologist might use statistical correlations to check for a relationship between the high school dropout rate and homicide in a city or county. An Interactionist-oriented sociologist might observe a newly arrived migrant population in a neighborhood to see how they define the new cultural situations they encounter as they arrive. Gradually, these three main theoretical perspectives have survived to this day in sociology: 1. Functionalist, 2. Conflict and 3. Interactionist perspectives. These perspectives often pop up in class discussions so it’s worth understanding their basic approaches. The first two perspectives are summarized in FIGURE 1.1 below. The Interactionist perspective will be addressed in Chapters 4 & 5. Page 32 of 34 TABLE 1.2: FUNCTIONALIST VS. CONFLICT PERSPECTIVES FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Originators: Herbert Spencer & E. Durkheim Society’s Image: Society’s parts work like the parts of a body, in harmony, providing functions for each other and the whole of society. Explanation for the Social Order: Individuals are naturally cooperative and willing to accept their social system as it is, like ants working together in an ant farm. Basic Research Question: What function is provided by the social arrangement being studied? View of Social Change: If it is rapid change it may cause breaks in vital social ties between individuals, causing social problems. Very rapid changes like successful labor strikes thus would be seen as a dysfunction, a disorder in society. Weakness: The functionalist perspective does not question the unfairness and unequal power arrangements in a social system, and therefore may not encourage change towards justice. Its research findings are often convenient for the powerful because their advantage is not the main point of interest. CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE Originators: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels Society’s Image: So