Week 1 2 - Chapter 1 PDF

What Is Sociology? 1 The admissions process at major American universities has: a always favored prettier or more handsome people. b always favored minorities. c always favored athletes. d undergone serious revision over time....

What Is Sociology? 1 The admissions process at major American universities has: a always favored prettier or more handsome people. b always favored minorities. c always favored athletes. d undergone serious revision over time. Turn the page for the correct answer. 3  T he correct answer is d, because the criteria for admission to universities have changed over time. In the early twentieth century, college admissions began to undergo a series of major transformations, for reasons that were kept discreet- ly out of the public eye (Karabel, 2005; Gladwell, 2005). In 1905, the SAT was instituted, and for the first time, people started getting into college on the basis of standardized tests. Within a few years, the Harvard class had become 15 percent Jewish, as Jews (not unlike Asians today) excelled at the standardized test in disproportionate numbers. Sociologists to this day disagree about whether this success can be explained by cultural character- istics or economic advantages that even relatively poor ethnic and religious minorities experience in comparison with other minority groups that don’t do as well. Nevertheless, reflecting the wider anti-Semitism of the era, the people who were running Harvard looked at this outcome as a very undesirable turn of events. The administrators drew an analogy between the university and hotels in upstate New York— first the Jews will arrive, then the Gentiles will leave, and then the Jews will leave and nobody will be here or want to come here anymore (Zimmerman, 2010). So Harvard determined that it needed to find another way of conducting admissions. Rather than putting quotas on Jews, they decided to change to a system of admissions very much like the one we know today. They would start to look at “the whole person,” rather than give advantages to people simply because they’d done well on a standardized test. In recent years, these institutions have generally transitioned to looking for “best graduates” rather than “best students”; that is, not students who will excel academically in college, but instead, those who will become successful after college (Gladwell, 2005). Excellent high school students compete for a limited number of spots at elite American colleges, with many able candidates being rejected in favor of athletes or student leaders in lower academic standing. LEA R NING OBJECTIV ES 1 BASIC CONCEPTS Learn what sociology covers as a field and how everyday topics are shaped by social and historical forces. Recognize that sociology involves not only acquiring knowledge but also developing a sociological imagination. 2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL THINKING Learn how sociology originated and understand the significance of the intellectual contributions of early sociologists. 3 MODERN THEORETICAL APPROACHES Be able to identify some of the leading theorists and the concepts they contributed to sociology. Learn the different theoretical approaches modern sociologists bring to the field. 4 HOW CAN SOCIOLOGY HELP US? Understand how adopting a sociological perspective allows us to develop a richer understanding of ourselves and the world. 4 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology?  Today, it seems natural that a col- lege would want to get to know a stu- dent as a whole person. In your college application, you had to write an essay that helped define you as a total human being. You may have tried to show what an interesting person you are by dis- cussing the clubs you were a part of and the sports you participated in. While answer c is not entirely correct, athletes do experience a growing advantage in admissions over their peers, despite on average lower GPAs and SAT scores. Part of the reason for this advantage may be that athletes are still able (and more likely) to pursue careers in high- paying professions (Bowen and Shul- man, 2001). When Ivy League schools switched to the new system, they would also send representatives to various schools around the country to interview prospective students. They didn’t want too many “nerds.” They wanted well- rounded, good-looking people—future leaders who would have an impact on the country and who would make these schools look good in return. And so they Colleges today consider the whole person when making would conduct interviews and keep notes admissions decisions, but that wasn’t always the case. on whether an applicant was tall, hand- some, or pretty (by whatever standard that was determined). There were things the admissions office simply didn’t like: people with big ears, for example. Short people were also undesirable, as recommendation files from that time indicate. In the mid-1950s, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were actually keep- ing records on the number of men who entered the freshman class who were over six feet tall. Today, all schools release records about their incoming freshman classes, but they are more likely to keep track of race, class, and gender variables than height or ear size. Thus, answer choice a is incorrect if we are considering the present day; though physical appearance was at one time a salient aspect of college admissions criteria, it is generally no longer a consideration. Indeed, when people hear statistics about incom- ing college freshman classes, they more frequently ask about affirmative action. Some whites might wonder, “Is it true that I can’t get into some competitive schools because so many of the spaces now go to minorities?” sociological imagination Ċ The application of It’s interesting how frequently this question imaginative thought to the asking and answering of sociological questions. Someone using the is asked. The average person who wants to know sociological imagination “thinks himself away” is actually using what C. Wright Mills called from the familiar routines of daily life. the sociological imagination , a phrase he What Is Sociology?5  coined in 1959 in a now- classic book (Mills, social structure Ċ The underlying regularities or 2000; orig. 1959). Mills tried to understand patterns in how people behave in their relationships with one another. how the average person in the United States understood his or her everyday life. According to Mills, each of us lives in a very small orbit, and our worldview is limited by the social situations we encounter on a daily basis. These include the family and the small groups we are a part of, the school we attend, and even the dorm in which we live. All these things give rise to a certain limited perspective and point of view. The average person, according to Mills, doesn’t really understand his or her personal problems as part of any kind of larger framework or series of goings-on. Mills argued that we all need to overcome our limited perspective. What is necessary is a certain quality of mind that makes it possible to understand the larger meaning of our experiences. This quality of mind is the sociological imagination. When some white college applicants wonder if they are not getting into competi- tive schools because so many of the spaces go to minorities, they are connecting their individual experience to a conception of the larger social structure. This conception about college admissions is perpetuated as a valid idea by cable-television news; cer- tain newspapers, magazines, and websites; and everyday conversation. But is it true? One thing that Mills did not mention is that having a sociological imagination requires more than making connections between individual lives and ideas about social structure. Since Mills’s time, sociologists have come to focus more strongly than ever on the careful assessment of evidence. When you look at the data, you will realize that it is absolutely impossible for most college rejections to be due to affirmative action. In a current entering class at an Ivy League school, for example, out of 1,000 students, there may be 100 blacks and 75 Latinos. The 1,000 students were selected from about 20,000 applicants. A significant portion of the 19,000 who were rejected may think that they didn’t get in because a black or a Latino applicant got in instead of them. But we know from the data that this is impossible: There is no way that 175 people could be keeping 19,000 people out of any school. For this reason, answer choice b is also incorrect. As you can see, it’s not enough to have a sociological imagination in the way that Mills intended it. We want you to learn how to sort through the evidence in a way that begins with imagination but insists on the kind of methods that can give us firmer and better answers to important sociological questions. How to do this in a rigorous way will be the subject of Chapter 2. T HE ANSWER I S D. 1 BASIC CONCEPTS The scope of sociological study is extremely wide, but in general, sociologists ask them- selves certain questions that help to focus the sociological imagination and provide them with the concepts that motivate research. These questions that orient the discipline include, how are the things that we take to be natural actually socially constructed? How 6 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology? is social order possible? Does the individual mat- ter? How are the times in which we are living dif- social construction Ċ An idea or practice that a group of people agree exists. It is maintained over ferent from the times that came before? time by people taking its existence for granted. Social Construction There is a basic flaw in human reasoning that goes something like this: The things that we see before us are inevitable. They are natural and cannot be changed. What sociol- ogy teaches us is that, in many ways, we are freer than we think—that the things we think are natural are actually created by human beings. We might consider the question we started this chapter with as an example: The college admissions system is a social construction located in a specific place and time. Criteria for admission to American colleges have shifted according to historical and demographic trends and changes in university leadership (Gladwell, 2005). Another example comes from everyday experiences with sex and gender. A baby is usually born with either a penis or a vagina. By way of that characteristic, the baby begins a process of being assigned to the category of “boy” or “girl.” This distinction is extremely important because the baby’s sex is almost always the first thing you want to know before you interact with him or her. If you can’t figure it out, you may ask the parents. Is this true of any other characteristic? You usually don’t need to know the race of a baby before interacting with him or her. You don’t need to know the economic class of a baby. Most babies today, regardless of their economic standing, are dressed in mass-produced clothes from stores such as Baby Gap or Target. In general, most parents do not try to signal the class of their baby with his or her garments. The same principle applies to race and ethnicity. Some parents will dress their baby to affili- ate with a certain race or ethnic group, but— except on holidays—this practice is less commonplace. Not as many people feel they need to know the race of a baby to interact with the infant. Sex is different. If you are a parent, you do not want someone coming up to your baby boy and asking, “Is it a boy or a girl?” So what do you do to avoid this scenario? You dress your baby in blue if he is a boy or in pink if she is a girl. Some parents do not do this at the beginning—until they start getting asked that question. Then they start dressing their baby in a certain way so that people will stop asking. Of course, even if you do dress your baby in the traditional blue or pink, there may still be people who come up and ask, “Is it a boy or a girl?” But it is not something that will happen often, because most people are pretty good at reading social cues—such as a blue or pink cap. Now, the fact that many people need to know the sex of a baby suggests that we interact differently depending on whether we think the baby is a boy or a girl. If a baby is a boy, a person might walk up and say something in a traditional masculine style, such as “Hey, bud! How you doin’?” If it’s a girl, the person might say something that is more appropri- ate for a little girl or more in keeping with the norms of traditional femininity. Eventu- ally, we get to the point where these interactions start to mold the kind of person the baby becomes. Children come to see themselves as being either a boy or a girl. They start to move their bodies like a little boy or a little girl. They know that this is how others see them, and they know that when they go out onto the street, they occupy the role of boy or girl. This happens through a process of interaction. Even though it is not simply a natural occurrence that a person starts to behave as a boy or a girl, many of us are raised to believe that the differences between men and women are Basic Concepts7  purely biological. Sociologists disagree. Does this mean that sociologists want to dismiss the role of biology? No. The goal of sociology is not to try to teach you that the biological realm is a residual category with a minor role in explaining human behavior. One purpose of sociology is to disentangle what is biological from what is socially constructed. It is in part to try to determine how social phenomena relate to biological phenomena. Most soci- ologists admit that there is a place for the biological. However, many studies show that the things that the average human People interact differently with babies based on the babies’ being thinks are biological, and thus natu- gender. How do sociologists analyze these interactions? ral, are actually socially constructed. The more you start to think about disentangling what is natural from what is socially constructed, the more rigorously you will begin to think like a sociologist. Social Order A professor looks out onto a lecture hall and sees a roomful of silent students taking notes and exhibiting self-control and discipline. There must be somebody in the room who wishes that he or she were doing yoga instead, or who would like to turn around and say something to a friend in the back. But the fact of the matter is that almost everyone appears to be doing the same thing: sitting quietly, listening, taking notes (or at least pretending to). How can we explain this orderly behavior? How can we explain the exis- tence of social order in a lecture hall or in a society? We certainly need social order to get through the day, but how can we understand it? Sociologists have offered up many different explanations to try to answer such ques- tions. One explanation is that it is rational for individuals to act this way. Students know it is in their self-interest to sit quietly and pay, or pretend to pay, attention. Perhaps a student hopes to apply to graduate school and wants to get a letter of recommendation from the professor. This goal motivates the student to respond to the classroom envi- ronment: The professor’s willingness to write a letter is an incentive for good behavior. The recommendation acts as an incentive, stimulating the response of the student who wants it. The student tries to make a good impression, all the while keeping in mind that if he or she turns around and talks to the friend week after week instead of listening, the professor might write an unflattering letter or refuse to write one at all. This explana- tion based on self-interest and incentives is what economists would use to explain most things. While some sociologists adopt such theories, most find such explanations to be based on an all-too-narrow conception of human nature. They appeal to a different set of theories. Thus, another explanation for social order is the existence of norms. It is a norm of social life that when students come into a classroom, they sit and take notes and pay attention. We learn and internalize norms as young people through a process called socialization. Once we have internalized a norm, we tend to follow through with the 8 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology? expectations of the norm in most of our interac- tions. Norms are important to sociologists because socialization Ċ The social processes through which children develop an awareness of social they explain some of the ways in which we are norms and values and achieve a distinct inside society and, simultaneously, society is sense of self. Although socialization processes inside us. are particularly significant in infancy and childhood, they continue to some degree Yet another explanation for social order throughout life. No individuals are immune from focuses on beliefs and values. Perhaps students the reactions of others around them, which place a value on the classroom, on the univer- influence and modify their behavior at all phases of the life course. sity, or on higher education. If this is the case, then the social order upheld in classrooms is more than a norm. The lecture hall is a symbol of a greater whole, a sacred place that is part of a larger moral universe. Students sit quietly because they believe professors in this ceremonial order deserve respect, maybe even deference. It is important to keep in mind that we do not need to choose among these theories. Multiple factors can operate together. All these explanations address the question of social order from a sociological perspective. As such, the existence of social order is not taken for granted. For the average person, the question of social order arises in response to disruptions or breaks in that order. The average person who sees an event such as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, or the Sandy Hook school shooting, may ask, “How could this event have happened?” The sociologist reverses that question and instead asks, “How is it that disruptions in the social order do not happen more frequently?” Agency and Structure A long-standing debate in the social sciences revolves around questions of free will and determinism. For example, a deterministic framework would predict that where an individual ends up in life is significantly, if not entirely, influenced by the position into which he or she is born. The sociological imagination can be quite deterministic in that it pushes us to see that, in many ways, the lives of individuals are quite determined by their social roles, gender, race, and class. Yet we would not want you to take away the lesson that individuals are trapped, or controlled like puppets. Let us return to our example of college admissions. It is true that Ivy League gradu- ates have a significantly higher average income than graduates of state-level schools. This difference in income would suggest that the place at which one attends college is a crucial determinant of one’s success in later life. However, conventional studies looked only at students who had the same SAT scores and grades; they did not factor in other, personal characteristics that may have had an effect on later success in life. In 2002, Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale published a study comparing the aver- age yearly incomes of students who had attended an Ivy League college with those who had been admitted to an Ivy League school but chose to attend a state-level col- lege instead. Despite an apparent disparity in opportunities for students who attended Ivy League versus non–Ivy League universities, Krueger and Dale discovered that the average salaries of the two groups of students were essentially the same. Contrary to the popular conception that attending elite institutions guarantees future success, it appears that highly motivated students, rather than institutional structures, prove more a determinant of this success; in other words, the individual does matter (2002; Gladwell, 2005). Basic Concepts9  Sociologists tend to think in probabilities. They look at the probabilities that people will end up in certain living situations on the basis of characteristics, de- emphasizing to some extent the power of the individual. However, the sociological imagination does leave room for the person to have an impact, even as we acknowledge that he or she is constrained. Think about a girl from a working-class family whose parents have active sociologi- cal imaginations and a very deterministic understanding of their child’s life chances. The parents did not go to college. Instead, they entered the workforce after high school, and they expect that their daughter will do the same. When the teenager tells her par- ents that she would like to go to college and be a lawyer, the parents might think of the probability of an individual from their class position achieving such a goal—how unlikely it is. They might tell their child to consider the odds against her, and encourage her to pursue a different goal so that she will not be disappointed. What if she took this advice with a grain of salt and applied to college anyway? She would be no different from many of your classmates—and possibly even you. Many of you can think of people who started out just like this, with similar constraints, but who ended up in college due to their refusal to accept the odds as their fate. Social Change Another question sociologists ask is how people live in light of the social transformations of their time. In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat and one of the first great social theorists, visited the United States from France. He wanted to understand how the con- ditions of democracy and equality were possible. Ever since the publication of his result- ing study, Democracy in America (1969; orig. 1835), the United States has been viewed through the lens of sociology as a nation of joiners in which, more so than in Europe, people are involved in many groups and activities. Yet sociologists constantly revisit questions about whether the way we live today is different from how we lived in earlier times, and one of the enduring questions is whether Americans are less involved today in public- spirited activities than in the past. Another great theorist, Max Weber (1947; orig. 1922), looked at the way the world had been changing due to the influence of massive large-scale organizations, and how the emergence of an organizational society and large bureaucratic organizations had changed and transformed social life. Karl Marx, in Capital (1977; orig. 1867), examined how indus- trialization had changed the structure of an entire society, transforming the relation- ships of individuals to their work and to one another from feudalism to capitalism. Émile Durkheim, in The Division of Labor CONCEPT CHECKS 3 in Society (1964; orig. 1893), discussed how the historical changes wrought by indus- 1. What is the sociological imagination, accord- trialization and urbanization had led to ing to C. Wright Mills? the increasing specificity of the roles indi- 2. How does sociology help us disentangle what is biological from what is socially constructed? viduals filled, and how this specialization 3. How does the concept of social structure functioned to benefit society as a whole. help sociologists better understand social These sound like abstract topics, but they phenomena? were central to understanding how the world was changing at particular times. 10 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology?  2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL THINKING When students start studying sociology, many are puzzled by the diversity of approaches they encounter. Indeed, sociologists often disagree about how to study human behavior and how best to interpret research results. Why is this? Why can’t sociolo- gists agree more consistently, as natural scientists seem to do? The answer is bound up with the very nature of the field. Sociology is about our lives and our behavior, and studying ourselves is the most complex endeavor we can undertake. To understand this complexity, sociologists are guided by the four questions we’ve discussed: How are the things we take to be natural actually socially constructed? How is social order possible? Does the individual matter? How are the times in which we live different from those that came before? Theories and Theoretical Approaches AUGUSTE COMTE The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857) invented the word sociology to describe the discipline he wished to estab- lish. Comte believed that the scientific method could be applied to the study of human behavior and society, and that this new field could produce knowledge of society based on scientific evidence. Comte believed that sociology, as the scientific study of social life, should model itself after physics; he initially called the subject social physics, a term that many of his contemporaries used. Comte also felt that sociology should contribute to the welfare of human- ity by using science to predict and control human behavior. His ideas about social planning were predicated on an understanding that society and the social order are not natural or preordained by Auguste Comte (1798–1857) a divine power, but rather are constructed by individuals. Later in his career, Comte drew up ambitious plans for the reconstruction of French society in particular, and for human societies in general, based on scientific knowledge. The question of whether sociologists should seek to serve humanity with their work is one that sociolo- gists still ask. HERBERT SPENCER Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)—a British philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, and political theorist—was both highly influ- enced by, and highly critical of, Comte’s writing. Spencer held that development is a natural outcome of individual achievement. In The Study of Sociology (1873), he argued that society can change and improve the quality of life for all people only when everyone changes their behavior to maximize their individual potential. In other words, he believed privileged members of society enjoyed a high quality of life because they had earned this status. He fur- Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) ther argued that the state should not assist in improving the life The Development of Sociological Thinking11  chances of individuals, because to do so would interfere with the natural order: The best persons succeed, and the rest fall behind due to their own lack of effort or ability. While Spencer’s writings are considered an important influence on functionalist perspectives, which we will learn about later in this chapter, his ideas have fallen out of favor with many contemporary sociologists. His ideas were roundly attacked by Lester Frank Ward, the first president of the American Sociological Association (Carneiro and Perrin, 2002). However, Spencer’s belief in the “survival of the fittest” had a profound influence on economics and political science, especially among scholars and policy mak- ers endorsing a “ laissez-faire” approach. ÉMILE DURKHEIM Although Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) drew on aspects of Comte’s work, he thought that many of his predecessor’s ideas were too speculative and vague and that Comte had not success- fully carried out his program—to establish sociology on a sci- entific basis. To have a scientific basis, according to Durkheim, sociologists must develop methodological principles to guide their research. Sociology must study social facts — aspects of social life that shape our actions as individuals, such as the state of the economy or the influence of religion. Durkheim’s famous first principle of sociology was “Study social facts as things!” By this principle, he meant that social life can be analyzed as rigor- ously as objects or events in nature. Like a biologist study ing the human body, Durkheim saw Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) society as a set of independent parts, each of which could be studied separately. These ideas drew on the writings of Spencer, who also likened society to a biological organism. Each of a body’s specialized parts— such as the brain, heart, lungs, and liver— contributes to sustaining the life of the organism. These specialized parts work in harmony with one another; if they do not, the life of the organism is threatened. So it is, according to Durkheim, with society. For a society to endure over time, its specialized institutions— such as the political system, the economy, the family, and the educational system—must func- tion as an integrated whole. Durkheim referred to this social cohesion as organic solidarity. He argued that the continuation of a society depends on cooperation, which presumes a general consensus among its members regarding basic values and customs. Another theme pursued by Durkheim, and social facts Ċ According to Émile Durkheim, by many others since, is that societies exert the aspects of social life that shape our actions as social constraint over their members’ actions. individuals. Durkheim believed that social facts could be studied scientifically. Durkheim argued that society is far more than the sum of individual acts; when we analyze organic solidarity Ċ According to Durkheim, the social cohesion that results from the various parts social structures, we study characteristics that of a society functioning as an integrated whole. have a “firmness” or “solidity” comparable to social constraint Ċ The conditioning influence those of structures in the physical world. Think on our behavior of the groups and societies of of a person standing in a room with several doors. which we are members. Social constraint was regarded by Durkheim as one of the distinctive The structure of the room constrains the range properties of social facts. of the person’s possible activities. The position of the walls and doors, for example, defines routes 12 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology? of exit and entry. Social structure, according to Durkheim, constrains our activities in a parallel division of labor Ċ The specialization of work tasks by means of which different occupations way, limiting what we can do as individuals. It is are combined within a production system. All “external” to us, just as the walls of the room are. societies have at least some rudimentary form Durkheim’s analysis of social change was of division of labor, especially between the tasks allocated to men and those performed by based on the development of the division of women. With the development of industrialism, labor ; he saw it as gradually replacing reli- the division of labor became vastly more complex gion as the basis of social cohesion and provid- than in any prior type of production system. ing organic solidarity to modern societies. He anomie Ċ The concept first brought into wide usage in sociology by Durkheim to refer to a argued that as the division of labor expands, situation in which social norms lose their hold people become more dependent on one another over individual behavior. because each person needs goods and services materialist conception of history Ċ The that those in other occupations supply. view developed by Marx according to which Another of Durkheim’s famous studies (1966; material, or economic, factors have a prime role in determining historical change. orig. 1897) analyzed suicide. Although suicide seems to be a personal act, the outcome of extreme personal unhappiness, Durkheim showed that social factors such as anomie—a feeling of aimlessness or despair provoked by modern social life—influence suicidal behavior. Sui- cide rates show regular patterns from year to year, he argued, and these patterns must be explained sociologically. According to Durkheim, processes of change in the modern world are so rapid and intense that they give rise to major social difficulties, which he linked to anomie. Traditional moral controls and standards, formerly supplied by religion, largely break down under modern social development, and this breakdown leaves many individu- als feeling that their lives lack meaning. Durkheim later focused on the role of religion in social life. In his study of religious beliefs, practices, and rituals, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1965; orig. 1912), he explored the importance of religion in maintaining moral order in society. KARL MARX Karl Marx (1818–1883)—German economic, political, and social theorist—also sought to explain social changes arising from the Industrial Revolution; however, his ideas contrast sharply with those of Comte and Durkheim. When he was a young man, his politi- cal activities brought him into conflict with the German authori- ties; after a brief stay in France, he settled in exile in Britain. Much of his writing focuses on economic issues, but because he was con- cerned with connecting economic problems to social institutions, his work is rich in sociological insights. Marx’s viewpoint was founded on what he called the materialist conception of history. According to this view, it is not the ideas or values human beings hold that are the main sources of social change, as Durkheim claimed. Rather, social change is prompted primarily by economic influences. The conflicts between Karl Marx (1818–1883) classes—rich versus poor—provide the motivation for historical development. In Marx’s words, “All human history thus far is the history of class struggles.” Though he wrote about various phases of history, Marx concentrated on change in modern times. For him, the most important changes were bound up with the The Development of Sociological Thinking13  development of capitalism. Those who own capitalism Ċ An economic system based on the capital—factories, machines, and large sums private ownership of wealth, which is invested and reinvested in order to produce profit. of money—form a ruling class. The mass of the population makes up a class of wage workers, bureaucracy Ċ A type of organization marked by a clear hierarchy of authority and a working class, who do not own the means of the existence of written rules of procedure and their livelihood but must find employment pro- staffed by full-time, salaried officials. vided by the owners of capital. Capitalism is thus a class system in which conflict is inevi- table because it is in the interests of the ruling class to exploit the working class and in the interests of the workers to seek to over- come that exploitation. According to Marx, in the future, capitalism will be supplanted by a society with no divisions between rich and poor. He didn’t mean that all inequalities would disappear. Rather, societies will no longer be split into a small class that monopolizes economic and political power and a large mass of people who benefit little from the wealth their work creates. The economic system that will develop in response to capitalist conflict will be characterized by communal ownership and will lead to a more equal society than we know at present. Marx’s work had a far-reaching effect on the twentieth- century world. Until the fall of Soviet communism at the end of the twentieth century, more than a third of the earth’s population lived in societies whose governments derived inspiration from Marx’s ideas. In addition, many sociologists have been influenced by Marx’s ideas about class divisions. MAX WEBER Like Marx, the German-born Max Weber (pronounced “Vaber,” 1864–1920) cannot be labeled simply a sociologist, because his interests spanned many areas. His writings cov- ered the fields of economics, law, philosophy, and comparative history as well as sociol- ogy, and much of his work also dealt with the development of modern capitalism. He was influenced by Marx but was also critical of some of Marx’s major views. For instance, he rejected the materialist con- ception of history and saw class conflict as less significant than did Marx. In Weber’s view, economic factors are important, but ideas and values have just as much effect on social change. Some of Weber’s most influential writings analyzed the distinctiveness of Western society compared with other major civilizations. He studied the religions of China, India, and the Near East, thereby making major contributions to the sociology of religion. Comparing the leading religious systems in China and India with those of the West, Weber concluded that certain aspects of Christian beliefs had strongly influenced the rise of capitalism. He argued that the capitalist outlook of Western Max Weber (1864–1920) societies had not emerged, as Marx supposed, only from eco- nomic changes. In Weber’s view, cultural ideas and values shape society and affect individual actions. One of the most persistent concerns of Weber’s work was the study of bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is a large organization that is divided into jobs based on specific 14 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology?  Table 1.1 Interpreting Modern Development DURKHEIM 1. The main dynamic of modern development is the division of labor as a basis for social cohesion and organic solidarity. 2. Durkheim believed that sociology must study social facts as things, just as science would analyze the natural world. His study of suicide led him to stress the influence of social factors, qualities of a society external to the individual, on a person’s actions. Durkheim argued that society exerts social constraint over our actions. MARX 1. The main dynamic of modern development is the expansion of capitalism. Rather than being cohesive, society is divided by class differences. 2. Marx believed that we must study the divisions within a society that are derived from the economic inequalities of capitalism. WEBER 1. The main dynamic of modern development is the rationalization of social and economic life. 2. Weber focused on why Western societies developed so differently from other societies. He also emphasized the importance of cultural ideas and values on social change. functions and staffed by officials ranked according to a hierarchy. Industrial firms, government organizations, hospitals, and schools are examples of bureaucracies. Weber saw the advance of bureaucracy as an inevitable feature of our era. Bureaucracy enables large organizations to run efficiently, but at the same time, it poses problems for effective democratic participation in modern societies. Bureaucracy involves the rule of experts who make decisions without consulting those whose lives are affected by these decisions. Some of Weber’s writings also address the character of sociology itself. He was more cautious than either Durkheim or Marx in proclaiming sociology to be a science. According to Weber, it is misleading to imagine that we can study people by using the same procedures by which we use physics or biology to investigate the physical world. Humans are thinking, reasoning beings; we attach meaning and significance to most of what we do, and any discipline that deals with human behavior must acknowledge this fact. Neglected Founders Although Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Marx, and Weber are foundational figures in sociology, other thinkers from the same period made important contributions. Very few women or members of racial minorities had the opportunity to become professional sociologists during the “classical” period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Even the foundational figures in sociology frequently ignored women and racial minorities, at the same time that they were creating the first theories to systematically address inequality, stratification, subjective meaning, and exploitation. As a result, the few women and members of racial minorities who The Development of Sociological Thinking15  conducted sociological research of lasting importance often remain neglected by the field. These individuals and the theories they developed deserve the attention of soci- ologists today. HARRIET MARTINEAU Harriet Martineau (1802–1876), born and educated in England, has been called the “first woman sociologist.” As with Marx and Weber, her interests extended beyond sociology. She was the author of more than 50 books, as well as numerous essays, and was an active proponent of women’s rights and the abolition of slavery. Martineau is now credited with intro- ducing sociology to England through her translation of Comte’s founding treatise of the field, Positive Philosophy (Rossi, 1973). Additionally, she conducted a systematic study of American soci- ety during her extensive travels throughout the United States in the 1830s, which is the subject of her book Society in America (1962; orig. 1837). Martineau is significant to sociologists today for several rea- sons but in particular for her methodological insight. First, she argued that when one studies a society, one must focus on all its aspects, including key political, religious, and social institutions. Second, she insisted that an analysis of a society must include all Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) its members, a point that drew attention to the conspicuous absence of women’s lives from the sociology of that time. Third, she was the first to turn a sociological eye on previously ignored issues and institutions, including marriage, children, domestic and religious life, and race relations. Finally, like Comte, she argued that sociologists should do more than just observe; they should also act in ways that benefit society. W. E. B. DU BOIS W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963) was the first African American to earn a doctorate from Harvard University. Among his many contributions to sociology, perhaps most important is the concept of “double consciousness,” a way of talking about identity through the lens of the experiences of Afri- can Americans (Morris, 2015). He argued that American society lets African Americans see themselves only through the eyes of others: “It is a particular sensation, this double consciousness, this sense of always measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two- ness—an American, a Negro, two souls, two thoughts, two unrec- onciled strivings, two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder” (1903). Du Bois made a persuasive claim that one’s sense of self and one’s identity are greatly influenced by historical experiences and social circumstances—in the case of African Americans, the effect of slavery and, after emancipation, segregation and W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963) prejudice. 16 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology?  Throughout his career, Du Bois focused on race relations in the United States; as he said in an oft-repeated quote, “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line” (Du Bois, 1903). His influence on sociology today is evidenced by continued interest in the questions he raised, particularly his concern that sociology must explain “the contact of diverse races of men” (Du Bois, 1903). Du Bois was also the first social researcher to trace the problems faced by African Americans to their social and economic underpinnings, a connection that most soci- ologists now widely accept. Finally, he connected social analysis to social reform. He was one of the founding members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and a longtime advocate for the collective struggle of African Americans. Later in his life, Du Bois became disenchanted by the lack of progress in American race relations. He moved to the African nation of Ghana in 1961 when he was invited by the nation’s president, Kwame Nkrumah, to direct the Encyclopedia Africana, a government publication in which Du Bois had long had an interest. He died in Ghana in 1963. Although Du Bois receded from American life in his later years, his impact on American social thought and activism has been particularly profound, with many ideas of the Black Lives Matter movement informed by his writings (Morris, 2015). Understanding the Modern World: The Sociological Debate From Marx’s time to the present, many sociological debates have centered on Marx’s ideas about the influence of economics on the development of modern societies. According to Marx, the stimulus for social change in the modern era resides in the pressure toward constant economic transformation produced by the spread of capitalist production. Capitalism is a vastly more dynamic economic system than any other that pre- ceded it. Capitalists compete to sell their goods to consumers; to survive in a competi- tive market, firms have to produce their wares as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This competition leads to constant technological innovation because increasing the effectiveness of the technology used in a particular production process is one way in which companies can secure an edge over their rivals. There are also strong incentives to seek new markets in which to sell goods, acquire inexpensive raw materials, and make use of cheap labor power. Capitalism, therefore, according to Marx, is a restlessly expanding system pushing outward across the world. This is how Marx explained the global spread of Western industry. Subsequent Marxist authors have refined Marx’s portrayal. However, numerous critics have set out to rebut Marx’s view, offering alternative analyses of the influences shaping the modern world. Virtually everyone accepts that capitalism has played a major part, but other sociologists have argued that Marx exaggerated the effect of purely economic factors in producing change and that capitalism is less central to modern social development than he claimed. Most of these writers have also been skeptical of Marx’s belief that a socialist system would eventually replace capitalism. One of Marx’s earliest and most acute critics was Max Weber, whose alterna- tive position remains important today. According to Weber, noneconomic factors have played the key role in modern social development. Weber’s celebrated work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1977; orig. 1904) proposes that religious The Development of Sociological Thinking17  values— especially those associated with Puritanism—were of fundamental impor- tance in creating a capitalistic outlook. This outlook did not emerge, as Marx had sup- posed, only from economic changes. Weber’s understanding of the nature of modern societies, and the reasons for the spread of Western ways of life across the world, also contrasts substantially with that of Marx. According to Weber, capitalism— a distinct way of organizing economic enterprise—is one among other major factors shaping social development in the mod- ern period. Underlying these capitalist mechanisms, and in some ways more funda- mental than those mechanisms, is the effect of science and bureaucracy. Science has shaped modern technology and will presumably do so in any future society, whether socialist or capitalist. Bureaucracy is the only way of organizing large numbers of people effectively and therefore inevitably expands with economic and political growth. The developments of science, modern technology, and bureaucracy are exam- ples of a general social process that Weber referred to collectively as rationalization. Rationalization means the organization of social, economic, and cultural life according to principles of efficiency, on CONCEPT CHECKS 1. According to Émile Durkheim, what makes 3 the basis of technical knowledge. Which interpretation of modern soci- eties, that deriving from Marx or that sociology a social science? Why? coming from Weber, is correct? Scholars 2. According to Karl Marx, what are the differ- are divided on the issue. Moreover, within ences between the two classes that make up a capitalist society? each camp are variations, so not every 3. In what key ways did Weber’s interpretation theorist agrees with all the points of one of modern development differ from that of interpretation. The contrasts between Marx? these two standpoints inform many areas of sociology. 3 MODERN THEORETICAL APPROACHES Although the origins of sociology were mainly European, over the last century, the subject has become firmly established worldwide, and some of the most important developments have taken place in the United States. Symbolic Interactionism rationalization Ċ A concept used by Weber to The work of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), refer to the process by which modes of precise a philosopher teaching at the University of calculation and organization, involving abstract rules and procedures, increasingly come to Chicago, influenced the development of socio- dominate the social world. logical thought, in particular through a per- symbolic interactionism Ċ A theoretical spective called symbolic interactionism. approach in sociology developed by George Mead placed particular importance on the Herbert Mead that emphasizes the role of symbols and language as core elements of all human study of language in analyzing the social interaction. world. According to him, language allows us to become self- conscious beings aware of our 18 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology? own individuality. The key element in this pro- cess is the symbol , something that stands for symbol Ċ One item used to stand for or represent another—as in the case of a flag, something else. For example, the word tree is a which symbolizes a nation. symbol by which we represent the object tree. functionalism Ċ A theoretical perspective Once we have mastered such a concept, Mead based on the notion that social events can best argued, we can think of a tree even if none is be explained in terms of the functions they perform—that is, the contributions they make to visible. Symbolic thought frees us from being the continuity of a society. limited in our experience to what we can actu- ally see, hear, or feel. Unlike animals, according to Mead, human beings live in a richly symbolic uni- verse. This idea applies even to our very sense of self. Each of us is a self- conscious being because we learn to look at ourselves as if from the outside—as others see us. When a child begins to use “I” to refer to that object whom others call “you” (himself or herself), the child is exhibiting the beginnings of self- consciousness. All interactions among individuals, symbolic interactionists say, involve an exchange of symbols. When we interact with others, we constantly look for clues to discern what type of behavior is appropriate in the context and interpret what others are up to. Symbolic interactionism directs our attention to the detail of interpersonal interaction and how that detail is used to make sense of what others say and do. For instance, suppose two people are on a first date. Each spends a good part of the eve- ning sizing the other up and assessing how the relationship is likely to develop, if at all. Neither wishes to be seen doing this too openly, although each recognizes that it is going on. Both individuals are careful about their own behavior, being eager to pres- ent themselves in a favorable light; but, knowing this, both are looking for aspects of the other’s behavior that reveal his or her true nature. A complex and subtle process of sym- bolic interpretation shapes their interaction. Functionalism Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for concentrating too much on things that are small in scope. Symbolic interactionists have struggled to deal with larger- scale structures and processes—the very things that a rival tradition of thought, functionalism , emphasizes. Functionalist thinking in sociology was orig- inally pioneered by Comte, who saw it as closely bound up with his overall view of the field. To study the function of a social activity is to analyze its contribution to the continu- ation of the society as a whole. The best way to understand this idea is by analogy to the human body, a comparison that Comte, Durkheim, and other functionalist authors made. To study an organ such as the heart, we need to show how it relates to other parts of the body. When we learn how the heart pumps blood, we understand its vital role in the con- tinuation of the organism’s life. Similarly, analyzing the function of some aspect of soci- ety, such as religion, means examining its role in the continued existence and health of a society. Functionalism emphasizes the importance of moral consensus in maintain- ing order and stability in society. Moral consensus exists when most people share the same values. Functionalists regard order and balance as the normal state of society— this social equilibrium is grounded in a moral consensus among the members of soci- ety. According to Durkheim, for instance, religion reaffirms people’s adherence to core social values, thereby helping to maintain social cohesion. Modern Theoretical Approaches19  Figure 1.1 Theoretical Approaches in Sociology The solid lines indicate direct influence, the dotted line, an indirect connection. Mead is not indebted to Weber, but Weber’s views—stressing the meaningful, purposive nature of human action—have affinities with the themes of symbolic interactionism. Auguste Comte (1798–1857) Karl Marx (1818–1883) Max Weber (1864–1920) Émile Durkheim George Herbert Mead (1858–1917) (1863–1931) FUNCTIONALISM MARXISM SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM Functionalism became prominent in sociology through the writings of Talcott Parsons (1902–1979) and Robert K. Merton (1910–2003), each of whom saw functional- ist analysis as providing the key to the development of sociological theory and research. Merton’s version of functionalism has been particularly influential. In his work, Merton distinguished between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions are those known to, and intended by, the participants in a social activity. Latent functions are consequences of that activity of which participants are unaware. Merton used the example of a rain dance performed by the Hopi tribe of Arizona and New Mexico. The Hopi believe that the ceremony will bring the rain they need for their crops (manifest function). This is why they organize and par ticipate in the dance. But using Durkheim’s theory of religion, Merton argued that the rain dance also promotes the cohesion of Hopi society (latent function). A major part of sociologi- cal explanation, according to Merton, consists in uncovering the latent functions of social activities and institutions. Merton also distinguished between functions and dysfunctions. To look for the dysfunctional aspects of social behavior means to focus on features of social life that challenge the existing order. For example, it is incorrect to suppose that religion is always functional—that it contributes only to social cohesion. When two groups sup- port different religions or different versions manifest functions Ċ The functions of a type of of the same religion, the result can be major social activity that are known to and intended by social conflicts, causing widespread social the individuals involved in the activity. disruption. Thus, wars have often been fought latent functions Ċ Functional consequences that between religious communities— as in the are not intended or recognized by the members of a social system in which they occur. struggles between Protestants and Catholics in European history. 20 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology?  For much of the twentieth century, functionalist thought was considered the lead- ing theoretical tradition in sociology, particularly in the United States. In recent years, its popularity has declined as its limitations have become apparent. While this was not true of Merton, many functionalist thinkers—Talcott Parsons is an example—unduly stressed factors leading to social cohesion at the expense of those producing divi- sion and conflict. In addition, many critics claim that functional analysis attributes to societies certain qualities they do not have. Functionalists often wrote as though soci- eties had “needs” and “purposes,” even though these concepts make sense only when applied to individual human beings. Conflict Theories Functionalism and symbolic interactionism are not the only modern theoretical traditions of importance in sociology. A third influential approach is conflict theory. In general, conflict theories underscore the role of coercion and power in producing social order. Social order is believed to be maintained by domination, with power in the hands of those who possess the greatest political, economic, and social resources; historically, those with power would include white men with ample economic and political resources. Two particular approaches typically classified under the broad heading of conflict theories are Marxism and feminist theories. MARXISM Marxists, of course, all trace their views back to the writings of Karl Marx, but today, some schools of Marxist thought take very different theoretical positions. In all its variations, Marxism differs from non-Marxist traditions of sociology in that its adherents view sociology as a combination of sociological analysis and political reform. Marxism is supposed to generate a program of radical political change. Moreover, Marxists lay more empha- sis on conflict, class divisions, power, and ide- ology than do many non-Marxist sociologists, conflict theory Ċ A sociological perspective especially those influenced by functionalism. that emphasizes the role of political and economic The concept of power is of great importance power and oppression as contributing to the existing social order. to Marxist sociologists and to sociology in Marxism Ċ A body of thought deriving its main general. Power refers to the ability of indi- elements from the ideas of Karl Marx. viduals or groups to make their own interests power Ċ The ability of individuals or the count, even when others resist. Power members of a group to achieve aims or further sometimes involves the direct use of force the interests they hold. Power is a pervasive but is almost always accompanied by the element in all human relationships. Many conflicts in society are struggles over power, because how development of ideas (ideologies), which much power an individual or group is able to are used to justify the actions of the power- achieve governs how far they are able to put their ful. Power, ideology, and conflict are always wishes into practice. closely connected. Many conflicts are about ideologies Ċ Shared ideas or beliefs that serve to justify the interests of dominant groups. power because of the rewards it can bring. Ideologies are found in all societies in which there Those who hold the most power may depend are systematic and ingrained inequalities among on the influence of ideology to retain their groups. The concept of ideology connects closely with that of power, since ideological systems serve dominance, but they are usually also able to to legitimize the power that groups hold. use force if necessary. Modern Theoretical Approaches21  FEMINISM AND FEMINIST THEORY feminist theory Ċ A sociological perspective that emphasizes the centrality of gender in Feminist theory is one of the most promi- analyzing the social world and particularly the nent areas of contemporary sociology. This uniqueness of the experience of women. There development is notable because gender issues are many strands of feminist theory, but they all share the desire to explain gender inequality in are scarcely touched upon in the work of the society and to work to overcome it. major figures who established the discipline. feminism Ċ Advocacy of the rights of women The success of feminism’s entry into sociology to be equal with men in all spheres of life. required a fundamental shift in the discipline’s Feminism dates from the late eighteenth century approach. in Europe, and feminist movements exist in most countries today. Many feminist theorists’ experiences in the rational choice approach Ċ More broadly, the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s influ- theory that an individual’s behavior is purposive. enced their work as sociologists. Like Marxism, Within the field of criminology, rational choice feminism links sociological theory and politi- analysis argues that deviant behavior is a rational response to a specific social situation. cal reform. Many feminist sociologists have been advocates for political and social action to elimi- nate the inequalities between women and men in both the public and the private spheres. Feminist sociologists argue that women’s lives and experiences are central to the study of society. Historically, sociology, like most academic disciplines, has pre- sumed a male point of view. Concerned with women’s subordination in society, feminist sociologists highlight gender relations and gender inequality as important determi- nants of social life in terms of both social interaction and social institutions such as the family, the workplace, and the educational system. Feminist theory emphasizes that gendered patterns and gendered inequalities are not natural but socially constructed. (We will cover this point in more detail in Chapter 10.) Today, feminist sociology focuses on the intersection of gender, race, and class. A feminist approach to the study of inequality has influenced new fields of study, such as men’s studies, sexuality studies, and LGBTQ studies. Taken together, these theoretical perspectives underscore power imbalances and draw attention to the ways that social change must entail shifts in the balance of power—consistent with the overarching themes of conflict theories. Rational Choice Theory Max Weber thought that all behavior could be divided into four categories: (1) behav- ior oriented toward higher values, such as politics; (2) behavior oriented toward habit, such as walking to school on a familiar path; (3) behavior oriented toward affect (emo- tions), such as falling in love; and (4) behavior oriented toward self-interest, such as making money. Behavior in the last category is often called “instrumental,” or “rational,” action. In recent years, many sociologists have adopted an approach that focuses on this type of behavior. This approach has led numerous scholars to ask under what condi- tions human behavior can be said to constitute rational responses to opportunities and constraints. The rational choice approach posits that if you could have only a single variable to explain society, self-interest would be the best one. A person who believes in this approach might even use it to explain things that seem irrational. One popular 22 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology? rational choice theory sees decisions to marry as maximizing self-interest in a mar- riage market; this understanding might explain why marriage has declined the most in poor African American communities with low rates of employment. The explanation— that it is not in the self-interest of women to marry men who cannot support them (Wilson, 1987)—goes against competing explanations suggesting that poor African Americans don’t marry because they don’t share mainstream values. The rational choice argument sees the decline as having little to do with values and much to do with self-interest under existing conditions. According to this theory, if employment rates for black men were to change, so would the number of “eligible” men and the desire of women to marry them. Rational choice theorists find few irrational mysteries in life. One of the few some note is love, which they define as the irrational act of substituting another person’s self- interest for one’s own (Becker, 1991). But such a definition makes it difficult to distin- guish among basic altruism, friendship, and romantic love. Indeed, although a rational choice approach often can be useful, it cannot explain some aspects of life. Consider an angry driver who tries to teach a tailgater a lesson by tailgating the tailgater. Self- interest does not explain this action, because the “teacher” is unlikely to personally reap the benefits of a lesson well learned (Katz, 1999). Postmodern Theory Advocates of postmodernism claim that the classic social thinkers’ idea that history has a shape—it “goes somewhere” and leads to progress—has collapsed. No longer do any “grand narratives,” or metanarratives— overall conceptions of history or society—make any sense (Lyotard, 1985). In fact, there is no such thing as history. The postmodern world is not destined, as Marx hoped, to be a socialist one. Instead, it is dominated by the new media, which “take us out” of our past. Postmodern society is highly pluralistic and diverse. As countless films, videos, TV programs, and websites circulate images around the world, the many ideas and values we encounter have little connection with our local or personal histories. Everything seems constantly in flux: “[F]lexibility, diver- sity, differentiation, and mobility, communication, decentralization and international- ization are in the ascendant. In the process our own identities, our sense of self, our own subjectivities are being transformed” (Hall, Held, and McGrew, 1988). One important theorist of postmodernity, Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007), believed that electronic media created a chaotic, empty world. Despite being influenced by Marxism in his early years, Baudrillard argued that the spread of electronic communication and the mass media reversed the Marxist theorem that economic forces shape society. Instead, he asserted, social life is influenced above all by signs and images. In a media- dominated age, Baudrillard said, meaning is created by the flow of images, as in TV pro- grams. Much of our world is now a make-believe universe in which we respond to media images rather than to real persons or places. Is “reality” postmodernism Ċ The belief that society is television a portrayal of social “reality,” or does it no longer governed by history or progress. feature televised people who are perceived to be Postmodern society is highly pluralistic and diverse, with no “grand narrative” guiding its “real”? Do hunters in Louisiana really look and development. act like the Robertson family on Duck Dynasty, Modern Theoretical Approaches23  and do the tough guys in Amish Mafia resemble the peaceful Amish who live and work in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania? Baudrillard would say no and would describe such images as “the dissolution of life into TV.” Theoretical Thinking in Sociology So far, we have been discussing theoretical approaches—broad orientations to the sub- ject matter of sociology. Theoretical approaches are distinct from theories. Theories are more narrowly focused and represent attempts to explain particular social condi- tions or types of events. Theories are usually formed during the research process and in turn suggest other p roblems for subsequent research. An example would be Durkheim’s theory of suicide, referred to earlier in this chapter. Sociologists do not share a unified position on whether theories should be specific, wide-ranging, or somewhere in between. Merton (1957), for example, argued that soci- ologists should concentrate on what he called theories of the middle range. Rather than attempting to create grand theoretical schemes (in the manner of Marx, for instance), sociologists should develop more modest theories. Middle-range theories are specific enough to be tested by empirical research, yet sufficiently general to cover a range of phenomena. Consider the theory of relative deprivation, which holds that how people evalu- ate their circumstances depends on the persons to whom they compare themselves. Thus, feelings of deprivation do not conform directly to the level of material poverty one experiences. A family living in a small home in a poor area, where everyone is in simi- lar circumstances, is likely to feel less deprived than a family living in a similar house in a neighborhood where other homes are much larger and other people more affluent. Assessing theories in sociology, especially theoretical approaches, is a challenging and formidable task. The fact that there is no single theoretical approach that dominates the whole of sociology might be viewed as a limitation. But this is not the case: The jos- tling of rival theoretical approaches and theories actually highlights the vitality of the sociological enterprise. In studying human beings (ourselves), theoretical variety rescues us from dogma. Human behavior is complex, and no single theoretical perspective could adequately cover all its aspects. Diversity in theoretical thinking provides a rich source of ideas for research and stimulates the imaginative capacities so essential to progress in sociological work. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS: MICROSOCIOLOGY AND MACROSOCIOLOGY An important distinction among the theoretical perspectives we’ve discussed in this chapter involves the level of analysis at which each is directed. The study of everyday behavior in situations of face-to-face interaction is called microsociology. Macrosociology, microsociology Ċ The study of human behavior in by contrast, is the analysis of large-scale social the context of face-to-face interaction. systems, such as the political system or the macrosociology Ċ The study of large-scale groups, organizations, or social systems. economy. It also includes analysis of long-term processes of change, such as the development 24 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology? Microsociology focuses on face-to-face interactions (left), while macrosociology analyzes large-scale social forces (right). How might a microsociologist and a macrosociologist analyze this food court differently? of industrialization. Although micro analysis and macro analysis may seem distinct from each other, in fact, the two are closely connected (Giddens, 1984; Knorr- Cetina and Cicourel, 1981). Macro analysis is essential for understanding the institutional background of daily life. The ways in which people live their everyday lives are shaped by the broader institutional framework. Consider a comparison of the daily cycle of activities in a medieval culture and in an industrialized urban environment. In modern societies, we are constantly in contact with strangers—however indirect and impersonal. No mat- ter how many indirect or electronic relationships we enter into, even the most complex societies require the presence of other people. While we may opt to just text or e-mail an acquaintance, we can also choose to fly thousands of miles to spend the weekend with a friend. Micro studies, in turn, are necessary for illuminating broad institutional patterns. Face-to-face interaction is the basis of all forms of social organization, no matter how large scale. In studying a business corporation, we could analyze the face-to-face interactions of directors in the board- room, staff working in their offices, or workers on the factory floor. We would not gain a clear picture of the whole cor- poration in this way, because some of its business involves e-mail, phone calls, and CONCEPT CHECKS 1. What are the differences between symbolic 3 printed materials. Yet we could certainly interactionism and functionalist approaches to the analysis of society? contribute significantly to understanding 2. How do rational choice theorists explain human how the organization works. behavior? Later chapters will give further exam- 3. What role does theory play in sociological re- ples of how interaction in micro contexts search? affects larger social processes and how 4. How are macro and micro analyses of society macro systems in turn influence the more connected? confined settings of social life. Modern Theoretical Approaches25  4 HOW CAN SOCIOLOGY HELP US? As we discussed at the beginning of the chapter, sociological thinking is relevant to your day-to-day life—from applying to college to falling in love. C. Wright Mills emphasized these practical applications of sociology when developing his idea of the sociological imagination. When we observe the world through the prism of the socio- logical imagination, we are affected in several important ways. First, sociology allows us to see the social world from many perspectives. If we properly understand how others live, we better understand their problems. Practi- cal policies that lack an informed awareness of the ways of life of the people they affect have little chance of success. Thus, a white social worker operating in a pre- dominately black community won’t gain the confidence of its members if he or she isn’t sensitive to the differences in social experiences of whites and blacks in the United States. Second, we are better able to assess the results of public-policy initiatives. For example, a program of practical reform may fail to achieve its goals or may produce unintended negative consequences. Consider the large public-housing blocks built in city centers in many countries following World War II. The goal was to provide high standards of accommodation for low-income groups from slum areas and to offer shopping amenities and other civic services close at hand. However, research later showed that many people who moved to the large apartment blocks felt iso- lated and unhappy. High-rise apartment blocks and shopping malls in poorer areas often became dilapidated and provided breeding grounds for muggings and other violent crimes. Third, and perhaps most important, sociology can provide us with self- enlightenment—increased self-understanding. The more we know about our own behavior and how our society works, the better chance we have to influence our futures. Sociology doesn’t just help policy makers make informed decisions. Those in power may not always consider the interests of the less powerful or underprivileged when making policies. Self-enlightened groups can benefit from sociological research by using the information gleaned to respond to government policies or form policy initiatives of their own. Self- help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and social movements such as the envi- ronmental movement are examples of social groups that have directly sought practical reforms, with some success. Finally, developing a sociological eye toward social problems and developing rigor- ous research skills opens many career doors—as industrial consultants, urban planners, social workers, and personnel managers, among other jobs. An understanding of society also serves those working in law, journalism, business, and medicine. Those who study sociology frequently develop a social conscience. Should sociolo- gists themselves agitate for programs of reform or social change? Some argue that soci- ology can preserve its intellectual independence only if sociologists remain neutral in moral and political controversies. Yet are scholars who remain aloof more impartial in their assessment of sociological issues than others? No sociologically sophisticated person can be unaware of the inequalities, the lack of social justice, or the deprivations suffered by millions of people worldwide. It would be strange if sociologists did not take sides on practical issues, and it would be illogical to ban them from drawing on their expertise in doing so. 26 CHAPTER 1What Is Sociology?  We have seen that sociology is a discipline in which we often set aside our personal views to explore the inf luences that shape our lives and those of others. Sociology emerged as an intellectual endeavor along with the development of modern societies, and the study of such societies remains its principal concern. But sociologists are also preoccupied with the nature of social interaction and human societies in general. Sociology has major practical implica- tions for people’s lives. Learning to become a sociologist shouldn’t be a dull academic endeavor but rather an exciting pursuit! CONCEPT CHECKS 3 1. Describe three ways that sociology can help The best way to make sure the pursuit is us in our lives. exciting is to approach the subject in an 2. What skills and perspectives do sociologists imaginative way and to relate sociologi- bring to their work? cal ideas and findings to your own life. How Can Sociology Help Us?27 THE BIG PICTURE Chapter 1 What Is Sociology? 1 2 Basic The Development of Concepts Sociological Thinking p. 6 p. 11 LEARNING OBJECTIVES Learn what sociology covers as Learn how sociology originated a field and how everyday topics are and understand the significance of shaped by social and historical the intellectual contributions of forces. Recognize that sociology early sociologists. involves not only acquiring knowledge but also developing a sociological imagination. TERMS TO KNOW social facts ‘ organic solidarity ‘ sociological imaginatio[ ‘ social constraint ‘ division of labo_ ‘ social structurR ‘ social construction ‘ anomie ‘ materialist conception of ‘ socialization historf ‘ capitalism ‘ bureaucracf ‘ rationalization 1. According to Émile Durkheim, 1. What is the sociological what makes sociology a social CONCEPT imagination, according to science? Why? CHECKS C. Wright Mills? 2. According to Karl Marx, what 2. How does sociology help us are the differences between the disentangle what is biological from two classes that make up a what is socially constructed? capitalist society? 3. How does the concept of social 3. In what key ways did Weber's structure help sociologists better interpretation of modern understand social phenomena? development differ from that of Marx? Exercises: Thinking Sociologically 1. Healthy older Americans often encounter exclusionary treatment when younger people assume they are feebleminded and thus overlook them for jobs they are fully capable of doing. How would functionalism and symbolic interactionism explain the dynamics of prejudice against the elderly? 3 4 Modern Theoretical How Can Approaches Sociology Help Us? p. 18 p. 26 Be able to identify some of the leading Understand how adopting a theorists and the concepts they sociological perspective allows us contributed to sociology. Learn the to develop a richer understanding different theoretical approaches of ourselves and the world. modern sociologists bring to the field. symbolic interactionism ‘ symboY ‘ functionalisZ ‘ manifest function` ‘ latent function` ‘ P\nflict theory ‘ MarxisZ ‘ ]owe_ ‘ ideologie` ‘ feminist theory ‘ SRminism ‘ _NaVonal choice approach ‘ postmodernisZ ‘ microsociology ‘ macrosociology 1. What are the differences between symbolic interactionism and functionalist approaches to the analysis of society? 1. Describe three ways that 2. How do rational choice theorists sociology can help us in our lives. explain human behavior? 2. What skills and perspectives do 3. What role does theory play in sociologists bring to their work? sociological research? 4. How are macro and micro analyses of society connected?