Sociological Theory Chapter 1:
Introduction
INTENT
This book has a specific and straightforward goal: Make the ideas of sociological theorists understandable, and therefore memorable, to the average college student. Because this is my goal, the writing style I use may come across as less sophisticated than what is expected. I will gladly take this risk of seeming "unsophisticated," because it is my opinion that the purpose of writing is communication rather than to show off one's vocabulary and mastery of the English language. (A quick glance at the latest theory textbook will demonstrate that few authors agree with me on this issue.) There is no point in talking over the heads of your intended readers. What is interesting is that we so often have academic authors (e.g., college professors) trying to sound smart in a textbook. Boldly, I say a textbook is not the place for this. It is, instead, a place to sound simple.
This is not to say that the ideas discussed in this book are simple, or that the student will receive a "watered-down" version of them (quite the opposite). But a simple approach to explanation must be the method used to teach ideas as abstract and sophisticated as those produced by sociology's most important theorists. If sophisticated understanding can be achieved through abandoning sophisticated text, than the sacrifice will be well worth it. It is my stance that this will be the case, and that the serious student of sociology will decline to sell this crude but effective textbook back to the book store, preferring to keep it as a direct and clear reference for future challenges.
SELECTION
The question of "why these particular theorists?" will be asked by some readers who have experience with other (perhaps favorite) theorists. Eight theorists have "made the cut" into this particular piece of mainstream sociology. This number and these theorists have been selected deliberately, and with reason.
One motivation for writing this book was that my sociology department offers one unified course on theory, rather than separate courses on classical and contemporary theory. There are virtually no textbooks, and at this point (in my opinion) no useful textbooks, that cover both sorts of theory between two covers. In my first conception of this book, I planned twelve theorists. I finished chapters on two theorists, Marx and Durkheim, and used them along with (this) the introductory chapter, in my course. What I found was that these first three chapters took up one third of the semester. Given this, I have concluded that I would never be able to give adequate coverage to more than eight theorists total.
The eight thinkers chosen to fill this limited space were selected for several reasons. First, each represents a good example, if not the best example, of a particular type of theory. For instance, though there were many thinkers around Durkheim's time who thought of themselves as serious social scientists, and whose topic was society as a whole, Durkheim did the best job of studying that topic in the scientific manner. His fame in our field is justified, in my opinion, beyond question.
A related reason for this selection of theorists is that they tend to represent a particular time in sociological history. We start with Karl Marx, who wrote during the middle and late 19th century. Next are Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, late 19th century/ early 20th century Europeans. Moving to early 20th century America, we represent the interactionist school with George Herbert Mead, then skip ahead to the mid-century, radical but rigorous sociology of C. Wright Mills. The last three chapters are filled by theorists who are, at the time of this writing, still living. Arlie Hochschild's work reflects, to a degree, the influence of feminism in the last few decades of the century. Jean Baudrillard's postmodern ideas have been flowing freely for about the same period of time, as has the sociobiology of Robert Trivers.
Certain representatives of sociological theory -- who may be found in other textbooks -- have been purposely omitted. The rationale (reason) for this omission is one of practicality: these excluded theorists' ideas are so abstract as to be of little value to the undergraduate student trying to master the basics of sociological thought. Such theorists, like the Marxist Structuralist, Louis Althusser, are not necessarily unworthy (or worthy) contributors to our understanding of society. The problem is that they are speaking on a level that assumes basic understanding the student is not likely to have (masochistic students who crave structuralism, or neofunctionalism for that matter, can always look forward to graduate school).
Also conspicuously missing are the American functionalists, Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton. It would be polite to say that these theorists were excluded due to space limitations - and this is to an extent true. More to the point, due to space limitations certain theorists had to be excluded, and the functionalists were first on the list. It is not that functionalism has nothing to offer to our understanding of society - just that it has so little to offer. Fans of Parsons will object to this assessment, and I have known such fans, who claim Parsons to be a sophisticated contributor to social theory. What these people have never been able to do (when I have asked them), is communicate a single important contribution of functionalism. "You just have to read him to understand!", they insist. I have read Parsons, I have not understood, and in fact I can't imagine anyone understanding. With a few notable exceptions, my assessment of functionalism is that it uses complicated writing to express simple, or simply wrong, ideas about society. Its disciples, I think, are confused. They have mistaken the indecipherable code (in which these dreadful writers have written simplicities) with sophistication.
FORMAT
Except for this one, each chapter of this book will follow a standard format:
Biography.
Each chapter begins with a brief biography -- brief because our concern in studying theory is theory and not the personal details of theorists' lives. Still, some mention should be made of these lives, for two reasons. First, it is important to understand the sort of world each thinker lived in, so that we may have an idea of his or her biases and limitations. Second, personal details may help us remember the theorist as something more than a name, and thus provide a link between the name and the ideas. These people were (or still are), after all, real people. Knowing that the French, Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim took his mother to synagogue every week may help prevent us from referring to him as "Emily Durkheim" (as one professor here, thankfully in another department, is known to do), as well as reminding us that Durkheim was interested in the power of religion, despite the fact that he was an atheist.
In a nutshell...
Before we tackle a theorist's ideas in detail, this section will run down the bare bones of these ideas in bullet format. This "pre-summary" should serve to orient the reader to what will be discussed. It can also serve to refresh the rusty memory of those who have previously read and understood (then forgotten). This portion of the chapter includes page numbers that guide the reader to the appropriate section for more detail.
Remedial Sociology.
There are some terms only sociologists use (or that sociologists use in a different way than the rest of us). Though the reader should remember these from an introductory sociology class, it would be against the goal of learning to assume this is the case. Thus, a short vocabulary list of basic sociology terms the reader needs to know, before starting the chapter, is provided. For instance, the student should know how the term "class" is used by sociologists before he or she reads what Marx had to say about it.
Ideas that Made It.
All of the theorists discussed in this book published thousands of pages of text. It is not possible or even desirable to cover every theoretical notion they produced. There is too much to cover in a single textbook (used during a single semester), and even if we had the time, not every idea is a "winner." Sociological theorists are human, like you and me, and like you and me, not all of their ideas were useful (or even accurate), original, or interesting. But each theorist "made it" into mainstream sociology (in other words, into textbooks) because at least some of his or her ideas were so profound that they stood the test of time. What we can do, then, is have a good look at these ideas.
The "Ideas that Made It" portion of each chapter will be divided into a number of sections. Each section will be named for a specific idea or set of related ideas, and will also be numbered according to the chapter and its order (e.g., the third idea in chapter five will be numbered 5.3). This numerical system should make it easier to refer back to particular ideas when they come up in other parts of the book.
Before each idea is discussed in detail in a section, a very straightforward sentence or two will be used to characterize the main point(s) of the section. The purpose here is the same as the "In a nutshell" portion of the chapter -- to bluntly state the point in plain language so that the reader is prepared for the coming text, or reminded of what it says.
An important part of the "Ideas that Made It" sections are the "In Your Terms" examples. These examples are designed to make the abstract ideas discussed in the section more understandable by putting them into present-day, down to earth language -- in other words, by stating these ideas "in your terms."
Isms (e.g., Durkheimisms, Marxisms, etc.).
After the main, "ideas" portion of the chapter, the reader will find an alphabetical vocabulary list of concepts invented by, or used in a special way by, the theorist. These concepts will not be formally defined, for two important reasons. First, formal definitions encourage students to memorize words without understanding the meaning of the concept. Second, most of these concepts are so abstract that they cannot be easily "summed up" in a sentence or two. Instead of a definition, the student will find the number of the section where the idea is discussed (e.g., 4.6), as well as the page number.
Care to be a Marixist (or Durkheimian, or Weberian, etc.)?
So far, the reader will have been exposed to the theorist's best ideas, in a manner that should bring out the relevance and value of these ideas. This positive presentation should not keep thoughtful readers from noticing problems with the theory -- discovering questions theorists fail to answer, noticing social phenomena the theory does not explain, recognizing biases based on theorists' political beliefs, etc. Any good professor knows better than to sweep such critical observations under the rug: students should be encouraged to examine theory in a critical way, ask questions, raise problems, etc.
This process serves important purposes, the most important of which is to stimulate thinking (the whole point of education, I dare say). Even weak criticisms on the part of students (those easily dismissed by a counter-argument provided by the theorist or professor) are important, because they increase basic understanding -- understanding missed during the initial presentation. Another important function of criticism is that it tends to reveal problems that were left unsolved by a particular theorist -- and remain unsolved in social science due to their complexity (e.g., is free will something to be taken seriously?).
With the goal of encouraging critical analysis, this portion of the chapter consists of a list of critical questions (e.g., "Is Mead's distinction between the 'I' and 'me' useful to our understanding of the self?"), as well as some blank space for students to contribute their own. Keep in mind that these questions are not something to be learned as part of the theory -- they are exercises meant to stimulate thought and discussion about theory. In some cases, students may decide they have found the answers within the text. In others, the "answers" will be determined only by the best arguments -- by the outcome of group interaction (which could be consensus, continued disagreement, or something else).
In addition to other purposes, this part of the chapter should give students ideas for papers, if they are required in the course. Many pages can be written on a question that has no clear answer. Students will have opportunity to show understanding, analytical ability, and creativity as they address such questions on paper.
From Air to Earth.
Sociological theories are intended to explain real social phenomena. Too often "learning" ends up being memorization of textbook definitions and statements rather than real understanding that can be applied to actual events and situations. This section of each chapter challenges students to interpret/ understand situations as the theorist would, applying theoretical knowledge to real world examples.
Paragraphs describing a situation are followed by fairly direct questions, as a first-step exercise in application of ideas. Following the paragraph-question format are more broad and open-ended assignments that test student's understanding (e.g., "Give real-life examples of interactions typical of Mead's play and game stages," or "Do you feel what C. Wright Mead would call 'Status Panic?' Defend your answer with facts and arguments.")
Can't Get Enough of that Weber (or Trivers, or Mills, or etc.).
At the end of each chapter the student will find a short list of books or other sources written by the theorist in question. Only works by the original author are included. Whenever possible, suggested reading will be of the sort most comprehensible to undergraduates (certain theorists, like Weber, are more or less incomprehensible in all their forms).
THERE'S NOTHING AS PRACTICAL AS A GOOD THEORY
Theory vs. Fact: A Misleading Distinction
"It's just a theory." This statement sums up the average person's understanding of what theory is, and is very misleading.
Theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are not wild speculations (guesses) waiting to become "proven fact." Theories are simply explanations about how some aspect of reality works. A particular theory may be a useful explanation that helps us understand something better, or it may be a poor explanation that doesn't make much sense.
The best indication of whether a theory is useful or poor, according to a scientific point of view, is its relationship to facts. There is a relationship between theory and fact: a theory that makes sense, given the facts, is useful. A theory that does not explain the facts is poor.
Let us consider two theories that have been used to explain an important social event: murder. The first theory we will call "deterrence theory." This theory assumes that people will be less likely to commit murder if they think they will be severely punished for it. So the average person in "Society A," that has a maximum penalty of five years for murder, should be more likely to commit murder than a person in "Society B," that has the death penalty for murder.
Deterrence theory is quite logical, and is in fact accepted by many Americans (including candidates Gore and Bush, as indicated by statements they made during the 2000 election). The only problem with the theory is that it does not explain the existence of certain outstanding facts.
For instance, according to deterrence theory, societies with death penalties should have lower murder rates than those that do not. However, research consistently shows no significant difference in murder rates between societies with the death penalty and those without. Some studies have even indicated there may be a slightly higher rate of murder, on average, among societies that employ the death penalty.
On the surface, deterrence theory makes perfect sense. In fact, deterrence theory is a theory used in the study of crime, and it does fit with the facts of crime in come cases -- but not in the case of murder.
Let us consider a second theory of murder, which for our purposes we will call the "relative deprivation" theory of murder. This theory assumes that a person will be more likely to commit violent acts when he or she feels deprived compared to (relative to) others in his or her society. This theory would predict that societies with great inequality (i.e., large differences of wealth and income between people) would have higher rates of murder and other violent crime, since in such a society there would be a relatively large number of people in a position of relative deprivation (i.e., having very little, even though they observe others with much greater wealth).
Facts do support this theory, as research has shown. On average, the more economic inequality in a society, the greater the rate of violent crime. The theory is further supported by the fact that deprivation that is not relative (poverty among poverty, instead of poverty alongside wealth) is not associated with violent crime. Thus, if we look at a society that has a lot of poor people, but no rich people, the rate violence is not particularly high.
Neither of the theories we just mentioned is perfect, but one is more useful for our understanding of murder. According to the principles of science, theories that tend to explain the facts should be retained (kept), while those that do not should be abandoned. If a newly developed theory is better at explaining the facts than older theories, the new theory replaces the old one(s). In real life, such replacement may not come easily: scientists are people, and people are often slow to accept new ideas. Debates between scientists (and others), and other sorts of conflict may result, careers may be at stake, and so forth. But, in the long run, the best theories tend to prevail.
Though a theory may be well-accepted by the scientific community, it can never become a "fact." A good scientist recognizes that even a long-accepted theory is just "the best explanation we have at this time." Theories are not proved or disproved, they are just "supported" or "not supported" by facts.
So, to think of theories as unproved opinions, waiting to someday become facts, is not at all accurate. A well-accepted theory that fits the facts is much more than opinion -- it is often the best understanding the scientific community has of the subject in question.
The Practicality of Theory
But are theories practical? Like the idea that theories are "opinions" or "speculation," many people believe that what is "theoretical" must not be "practical." Practical means what works now, theoretical means untested and untried. Theoretical is on the chalkboard, on paper, in the air -- not down to earth. The real world has little to do with theory, it is commonly believed.
This idea, like the belief that theory and fact are opposites, is not accurate. Remember that theories are simply explanations. Scientific theories are explanations tested by facts, but the world is full of explanations that may or may not be scientific.
As thinking human beings, we try to explain much of what we experience. This tendency towards explanation is not just to satisfy curiosity -- we make decisions according to how we think reality works. For instance, if you think your preferred type of romantic partner is attracted to the color orange, you will probably wear it in situations where attracting romantic partners is your goal. As long as this is your explanation concerning the reality of romantic attraction, you are likely to behave in this manner.
As this example demonstrates, whether or not a person's explanation is correct, he or she will behave (make decisions) as if it is. Given this, we should see better why accurate explanations (theories) are more desirable than poor ones.
Consider our "murder theory" examples. If we believe deterrence theory best explains violent crime (and we do), we are likely to promote policies that increase punishments for such crimes (and we do). However, if we want to reduce violent crime (and we do), we would be wise to find a more "practical" theory.
Whether we call them "theories" or not, we all accept certain theories, and use them daily to make decisions. These theories have real life consequences. If you stop and take the time to think of all the theories you accept and use, you will find that, considering how "impractical" theories are, you depend on them very much. As it turns out, theories have great influence over your life. Suddenly, it becomes important to separate useful theories from poor ones. With this in mind we should approach the study of theory seriously, now and for life.
SOCIOLOGY: A CHILD OF THE MODERN ERA
This section of the chapter is provided for students who have an interest in the origins of sociology. It is possible to understand the ideas of sociological theorists without knowing these origins, and so the more practical-minded student may decide to skip this section. On the other hand, learning the historical background of sociology may help us understand what many of our theorists were trying to discover and explain.
The field of sociology was "invented" by people who wanted to understand the change of Western society from "medieval" to "modern." Before more can be said about this, it is necessary to explain the meaning of the concepts "Western," "medieval," and "modern."
The history of Western civilization (by "Western" we mean Europe and the Americas after European settlement there) is usually divided into three eras. The term "era" is typically used to mean a period of time that has some defining characteristics that distinguish it from other eras. For instance, in Western civilization, we use the term "Middle Ages" or "Medieval Period" to describe the span of history from about 500 to 1500 AD. The characteristics that distinguish this era from those coming before and after are such traits as a feudal economy (an aristocracy ruling over peasants who farm) and the widespread practice of Christianity.
The first era we can mention is the ancient period. During this period, which stretches from about 5000 BC or so to about 500 AD, the first civilizations formed. To say that the first civilizations were Western is not accurate - they began in what is today Iraq, then later in Egypt, as well as other locations in Northern Africa, Asia Minor (e.g., Turkey), and the Middle East. But the trend towards civilization did eventually spread to Europe, specifically Greece, and it is there that the history of Western Civilization can be said to begin.
Before we describe Ancient Greek civilization and its importance it is necessary to explain what is meant by civilization. Civilization means many things, but basically a society is "civilized" when:
it has settled into one spot, rather than being nomadic (always moving in search of food). Typically agriculture replaces hunting/ gathering.
it grows beyond the size of a "tribe" (i.e. thousands of people rather than a couple of hundred).
it has a fairy complex division of labor (i.e. more jobs than just "hunters" and "gatherers").
it has an official government, rather than relying only on informal ways to keep order and plan group action.
The Golden Age of Greece
The history of ancient Greece is, of course, too detailed to discuss in all its specifics here. Greece was rarely a unified nation -- it was more often a bunch of cities, each ruled by its own leadership. However, in certain places and times in Greece, there existed a way of life that has great importance for the future of Western civilization.
One such place and time was the city of Athens during the "Golden Age" (also known as the "Age of Pericles," about 460 to 430 BC). During this time, ideas and social practices important for the modern age first developed. One of these ideas was "reason" -- the idea that conclusions about reality should be based on facts and rational, logical thinking. We can compare reason to other ways of coming to conclusions about reality, such as tradition, emotion, authority, etc.
Reason is essentially the same as scientific thinking: relying on facts to develop explanations. Thus, what is today known as "science" began in ancient Athens, and many early scientific fields like medicine and math (as well as less scientific ones like philosophy and art) developed.
Through reason, it was thought that society could be made better. If this ideas sounds familiar, it should. To some extent we still think like this today (at least we think that science, through technology, will solve many problems). One of the practical outcomes of reasonable thinking in Ancient Greece was the practice of democracy -- of handing control of the society over to the common people. In reality, not everyone could participate (e.g. women and slaves didn't get to vote), but ancient democracy was very advanced in a world where most societies were ruled by kings or very small groups of people.
From Medieval to Modern
The ancient Athenians developed a society in which a good portion of the population valued and pursued learning, viewed reason as the best guide to thinking, and became their own rulers. Seeing as this great society existed more than twenty centuries ago, and that we began this section of the chapter by mentioning that sociology was a response to the transformation from the medieval to the modern period, you might wonder what the ancient society of Greece has to do with our current topic.
Or, you might have noticed that Athenian society resembles the ideal modern society. The modern period of western civilization was in fact an attempt to do what the Greeks did. What is interesting is that this attempt did not take place for so long. Both ancient Greece and ancient Rome, at different points and places, practiced this ideal type of society -- but of course it didn't last. The world has a tendency to change, empires rise and fall, and so did Greece and Rome, and along with them, these great societies.
By about 500 AD there was not much left of ancient civilization, and Western civilization went through its dark ages -- the medieval period. During this time, there was no democracy, and little reason. Monarchy (rule by kings and emperors) again became the norm, and religious fanaticism replaced reason and science. For at least one thousand years, the average member of the average Western society thought like a religious fundamentalist, and lived like a slave.
This began to change around 1500 AD, and the change was very slow, and occurred in different places at different times. But what basically happened is that the ideas of the ancient civilizations (e.g. Athens) came back into style. This took different forms -- in some cases it was art and music, like during the Italian "renaissance" (you remember Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc.). Renaissance literally means "rebirth" -- in this case the rebirth of the ideas from the great societies of the ancients.
Eventually (especially the 1600s and 1700s) the renaissance became more about science and politics than art, and we refer to this section of history as "the Enlightenment" because the ideas of the dark ages ("Obey God and the king!") were challenged by a return of the ideas of reason, science, and democracy. These ideas helped create a change from medieval to "modern" society -- monarchies fell (along with a lot of heads in France), and slowly superstition was replaced by early attempts at science. This was the time of scientists like Galileo (astronomy) and Sir Isaac Newton (physics), political thinkers like Rousseau ("all men are created equal"), philosophers like Descartes ("I think therefore I am").
Although Western civilization has never really ceased to be barbaric (as I write, vengeful bombs fall on a third-world pile of rock called Afghanistan), it did transform tremendously during this, the modern period. The modern era was a time when most all of the Western world became like ancient Athens… well, at least to some extent! Democracy became more common, religion lost some of its influence, people got educated, science became more acceptable as an approach to understanding and accomplishing things. Factories sprang up, mass production brought luxuries into the homes of the common person, a thing called capitalism came into fashion, new continents got explored (and conquered) -- the world became a very different place, in a relatively short period of time.
The Birth of the Sociologist
The modern era lasted about 450 years -- it begins around 1500 AD and ends at the conclusion of World War Two (about 1945; though many argue the modern era has not yet ended, for the purposes of this book we will call the period that began after the war and lasts into today, the "postmodern" era). While this may not seem like a "short" period of time to you, the social and technological changes that occurred during the period are remarkable compared to what came before. The point is that some people noticed this rapid change of society, and wanted to explain it. These people were the early sociologists and others (like Marx) who, although they did not define themselves as sociologists, are considered today to have contributed ideas important to our understanding of society.
Before the modern period, people didn't think as much about society as a topic of study, because society didn't "stand out." But when your society changes radically, it does. When your society comes into contact with many other societies in a short period of time -- societies very different from your own -- again, "society" stands out. A good analogy (comparison) might be a fish in water. The fish is like you and water is like your society. When your water changes slowly, predictably, or not at all, you hardly think about it: you take it for granted. But when it turns to ice, or starts flowing and pushing you with it, or gets connected to another body of water, or gets polluted or poisoned -- you notice. Suddenly, water stands out as an important thing.
The theorists discussed in this book wanted to answer many questions about this newly important topic of society. Examples of such questions include:
How does society go from simple to complex organization?
How do people in modern societies respond to a lack of traditional beliefs? (e.g., how does a modern society remain unified?)
What are the main characteristics of a modern society?
Is there something to the idea that the modern era is over?
How have the roles of women changed, and stayed the same, as society becomes modern?
Will modernity ever work out as planned? (i.e., can reason and science be used to make society perfect, or at least better?)
What forms do power and domination take in modern and other sorts of societies?
Are we essentially cavemen living in a high tech world?
These "questions of the
era" generated answers
(explanations,
theories), and these
answers are what this
book is about. You, like
the theorists in this
book, live in a society
that "stands out." Thus,
whether or not your
major is sociology, you
are likely to have
similar questions.
You're lucky in that all
these (mostly dead)
people have already went
through lifetimes of
thought and research to
concoct the explanations
they sought -- and all
you have to do is read
the finished product.
