SOC 816

Contemporary Sociological Theory

Instructor: Dr. Alesia Montgomery; 460A Berkey Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824; (517) 353-4465; montg143@msu.edu
[my personal version of the syllabus] [my personally blog post version of syllabus]

• Mass Deception & Violence: Critique of Adorno & Horkheimer
• Gender, Race, Nations, & Ways of Knowing
• Homans & NBA Tweeners
• Critique of “Exchange & Power in Social Life” [1964] by Peter M. Blau
• Granovetter: Embeddedness [blog post]
• Camic & Gross [blog post]
• The Construction of Reality: A Critique of Earving Goffman
• Hochschild, Arlie. 1983/2003. The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [blog post]
• Reflection Essay The Construction of Reality: A Critique of Earving Goffman [blog post]
• Final Paper[3/3/10 proposal] [4/21/10 draft] [5/5/10 final]
  • Initial Proposal: Frantz Fanon explains how cultural values are internalized, or ‘epidermalized’ into consciousness, creating a fundamental disjuncture between the black man’s consciousness and his body. Erving Goffman addresses the concept of role in “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” (1959) by examining how individuals “play a role.” I am going to critique both of these theorists by examining various modern applications in regard to how race and possibly masculinity to some extent determine how the American professional athlete performs (perhaps both on and off the court; public/private; group/individual; depending on audience).

Contemporary Sociological Theory

Spring 2010; Wed 4:10pm-7pm; Berkey Hall #214

Professor Alesia Montgomery
Email: montg143@msu.edu
Office Hours: Wednesdays 1:00pm-3:00pm or by appointment (460A Berkey)

Contemporary sociological theory has roots in the concerns of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, yet sociological theory-building has been transformed by world crises, social struggles, and epistemological debates. Since the early 20^th century, new techniques (e.g., statistical and computing programs) and controversial dialogues—including exchanges among the social sciences, between the social sciences and other fields (e.g., humanities, natural sciences), and between academics and activists—have fostered divergent sociological approaches.

This course has four goals:

1. To increase familiarity with the major approaches of contemporary sociological theory (including approaches with roots beyond sociology)
2. To enhance understanding of the influence of historical and social contexts on concepts and theory-building
3. To deepen awareness of the relations among theories and the links between theory-building and research, and
4. To encourage reflection on criteria for evaluating social theory. (Is empirical verification necessary and sufficient? Should we consider social impact?)

We will begin by comparing the classical sociology of the 19^th century “founders” with the critical theories of the early 20^th century Western Marxists and post-WWII postcolonial and gender scholars. Next, we will contrast these world-historical approaches with social exchange theory, symbolic interactionism, and institutional and network analyses. With these divergent approaches in mind, we will study how structure/agency and macro/micro have been combined since the late 20^th century, and we will consider how postmodern scholars draw foundational assumptions of sociology into question. Finally, we will sample theories about globalization, diaspora, and human/nature/technology links. Along the way, we will trace how class, race, gender, sexuality, and nation have become objects of theory building, we will note when psychological, cultural, political, and ecological processes are stressed or ignored, and we will consider the import of discursive and methodological shifts. To this end, we will explore the brutal relation between power and knowledge.

PREREQUISITES

Familiarity with classical sociological theorists and their precursors (e.g., Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Wollstonecraft, Douglas) is desirable but not required.

SEMINAR FORMAT

Lecturing graduate students is intellectually unproductive. I hope to learn as much from you (and I expect that you will learn as much from each other) as you will learn from me. At the start of class, I will give an overview that frames the historical and intellectual context of the readings. Afterwards, we will engage in careful analyses of the texts. To prepare for the discussion, you must complete the week’s readings and take in-depth notes before class.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

1) Weekly Reaction Posts on Angel (2 per week) 15%

Post reactions to the works by the theorists—not to the overviews in CST about them.

a. Your post should (1) summarize an argument in one of the week’s required readings [include page #s and quotes], (2) critique the argument, and (3) apply the reading to a current problem.

DUE:Each Tuesday by 5pm before Wednesday’s discussion. Appr. 1 page (3 paragraphs).

b. Respond to the post of one colleague. Point out problematic aspects of a colleague’s summary or critique, or provide additional insights or applications that support or extend their post.

DUE:Each Saturday by 5pm after the week’s discussion. No length requirements.

[4.0=missed 2 posts or less; 3.0=missed 3; 2.0=missed 4; No credit -> missed 5 or more posts]

2) Group Presentations 15%

You will lead class discussion (with up to 2 colleagues) for 2 weeks that you select. In the written and oral versions, your group presentation should flow well. Begin with an overview, then summarize and critique the arguments of the theorist(s), citing specific pages. The written AND oral versions must include between 2-3 discussion question(s). On the week of your presentation, you do not have to do the individual Tuesday post, but you do have to respond to an Angel post from a colleague by Saturday.

a. Written Version. To enable us to think about your views and question(s) in advance, post a

written version on Angel — approximately 2 pages per group member.

DUE: The written version is due on Tuesday at noon, the day before your presentation.

b. Oral Version. Your group should talk for roughly 30 minutes then ask discussion question(s).

3) Reflection Essay (5 pages, double-spaced) 5%

You may use the reflection essay as preparation and material for your final paper.

Option 1: Polish and expand upon one of your reaction posts or presentations.

Option 2: Frame a major theoretical debate in the literature relevant to your research interest.

Option 3: Critique the epistemological assumptions underlying a research method.

Option 4: Take a side in a debate about what sociological theory should be (e.g., positivist vs. anti-positivist)

DUE: 2/17

4) Final Paper (10-12 pages, double-spaced) 65%

Compare and critique two theorists on the syllabus (at least one must be a required reading; one can be a recommended reading if it is not a review article). It may be necessary to base your paper on longer pieces by the theorists than the excerpts selected for our weekly discussions. During the last class, you will discuss your paper.

DUE: (1) Proposal–3/3; (2) Post Rough Draft on Angel–4/21; (3) Final Paper–5/5

Grading Criteria

4.0 = Creative argument and outstanding analysis; no major problems with essay mechanics

3.5 = Accurate analysis; no major problems with essay mechanics

3.0 = Fairly good analysis but notable problems with the interpretations or the essay mechanics

Below 3.0 = Major problems with interpretations or essay mechanics

TEXTS

• Calhoun, Craig et al. 2007. Contemporary Sociological Theory (Reader). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
• Hochschild, Arlie. 1983/2003. The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Foucault, Michel. 1975/1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
• Gilroy, Paul. 1993. The Black Atlantic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
• Butler, Judith. 1990/2006. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

In addition to the required books and articles, there are recommended readings that I will briefly describe at the beginning of each class to frame the historical and intellectual context of the week’s required readings. The recommended readings include classics, recent theory, and reviews that may be useful for your work in and beyond this course.

I. Western Marxism and Critical Theory

Week 1 (1/13) What is Theory?

CST, pp. 1-22.

• Gramsci, Antonio. 1929-1935/1971. Excerpt from the “The Intellectuals” Prison Notebooks
• Jackson, George. 1970. Excerpt from Soledad Brother

Recommended:

• Marx, Karl. 1845. “Theses on Feuerbach.”
• Durkheim, Emile. 1895. “What is a Social Fact?”
• Foucault, Michel et al. 1971/2007. “The Masked Assassination.” In Joy James (ed.) Warfare in the
• American Homeland: Policing and Prison in a Penal Democracy. Duke University Press.
• Turner, Jonathan H. 1985. “In Defense of Positivism.” Sociological Theory, 3(2), 24-30.

Week 2 (1/20) Mass Deception and Violence

CST, pp. 357-362.

• Adorno, Theodor and Horkheimer, Max. 1944. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” Dialectic of Enlightenment.
• Baumann, Zygmunt. 1989. “Modernity and the Holocaust” In CST, pp. 428-447.
• Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. “Civil Society and the Political Public Sphere” In CST, pp. 388-407.

Film: Scene from Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa)–1952

Recommended:

• Freud, Sigmund. 1930. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: J. Cape & H. Smith
• Kant, Immanuel. 1781/2008. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Penguin (see Book II, Ch. 3)
• Kant, Immanuel. 1784. “What is Enlightenment?”
• Lukács, Gyorgy. 1923/1971. History and Class Consciousness. London: Merlin Press.
• Thompson, E.P. 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage.
• Weber, Max. “Bureaucracy” in Economy and Society

Week 3 (1/27) Gender, Race, Nation, and Ways of Knowing

• Smith, Dorothy “The Conceptual Paradoxes of Power” In CST, pp. 318-326.
• Collins, Patricia Hill “Black Feminist Epistemology” In CST, pp. 327-345.
• Fanon, Frantz “Black Skin, White Masks” In CST, pp. 337-345.
• Mohanty, Chandra. 1988. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” Feminist Review, 30 (Autumn), 61-88.

Film: Scene from The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo)–1966

Recommended:

• Dubois, WEB. 1903. “Of Our Spiritual Strivings.” Souls of Black Folk.
• Fanon, Frantz. 1959. Wretched of the Earth.
• Harding, Sandra. 2004. (ed.) Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. New York: Routledge.
• Ladner, Joyce. 1973. “Introduction.” The Death of White Sociology. Baltimore, MD: Black Classic Press.
• Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
• Spivak, Gayatri. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds.)
• Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, pp. 271-313. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

II. Rationality, Meaning, and Institutions

Week 4 (2/3) Strategies of Action

CSTpp. 81-87

• Homans, George C. 1958. “Social Behavior as Exchange” In CSTpp. 88-98
• Blau, Peter. 1964. “Exchange and Power in Social Life” In CSTpp. 99-110.
• Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies” ASR, 51, 273-286.

Recommended:

• Bentham, Jeremy. 1871. “What Utilitarianism Is” Utilitarianism. London: Longmans.
• Bernard, Jessie. 1954. “The Theory of Games of Strategy as a Modern Sociology of Conflict.” American
• Journal of Sociology, 59, 411-424.
• Coleman, James. 1986. “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action.” American Journal ofSociology, 91(6), 1309-1335.
• Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan.
• Schatzki, Theodore (et al.) (eds.) 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
• Nash, John. 1953. “Two-Person Cooperative Games.” Econometrica, 21, 128-140.
• Olson, Mancur. “The Logic of Collective Action.” In CSTpp. 111-115.
• Swedberg, Richard. 2001. “Sociology and Game Theory: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives.”Theory and Society, 30(3), 301-335.

Week 5 (2/10) Meaning and Interaction

CSTpp. 25-31.

• Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas. 1966. “The Social Construction of Reality.” In CST43-51.
• Goffman, Erving. 1969. “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.” In CST52-66.
• Blumer, Herbert. 1969. “Symbolic Interactionism.” In CST67-78.

Recommended:

• Dilthey, Wilhelm. 1900/1972. “The Rise of Hermeneutics.” New Literary History, 3(2), 229-244
• Hegel, Georg. 1807. The Phenomenology of Spirit.
• Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society.
• Merleau Ponty, Maurice. 1945/2002. Phenomenology and Perception. New York: Routledge
• Schutz, Alfred. “The Phenomenology of the Social World” In CST, 32-42.

Week 6 (2/17) Institutional and Network Analyses

CSTpp. 141-145

• DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” In CST
  
• Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Embeddedness.” In CSTpp. 162-170.
• White, Harrison. 1966. “Catnets.” In CSTpp. 171-181.

Recommended:

• Granovetter, Mark. 1983. “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited.” Sociological Theory,
• 1, 201-233.
• Weber, Max. “Asceticism and the Spirit of Capitalism” in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
• Simmel, Georg. 1964. “Quantitative Aspects of the Group” In K.Wolff (ed.) Sociology of Georg Simmel.
• Scott, W. Richard. 2008. “Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory.” Theory and
• Society, 37(5), 427-442.

REFLECTION ESSAYS DUE

III. Agency, Structure, and Embodiment

Week 7 (2/24) Theoretical Synthesis [No Group Presentation]

CST, pp. 219-224.

• Alexander, Jeffrey. 1978. “Formal and Substantive Voluntarism in the Work of Talcott Parsons: A Theoretical and Ideological Reinterpretation.” American Sociological Review, 43(2), 177-198.
• Giddens, Anthony “Some New Rules of Sociological Method” “Agency, Structure,” “Consequences of Modernity” (CST, 225-256)
• Camic, Charles and Gross, Neil. 1998. “Contemporary Developments in Sociological Theory: Current Projects and Conditions of Possibility.” Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 453-476.

Recommended:

• Akiwowo, Akinsola. 1999. “Indigenous Sociologies.” International Sociology, 14, 115-138.
• Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1995. Fin de Siècle Social Theory: Relativism, Reduction, and theProblem of Reason. New York: Verso.
• Connell, Raewyn. 2006. “Northern Theory: The Political Geography of General Social Theory.” Theoryand Society, 35, 237-264.
• Durkheim, Emile. 1895/1982. Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press.
• Durkheim, Emile. 1912/1995. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
• Lie, John. 2008. “Social Theory, East Asia, Science Studies.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 2, 445–448.
• Park, M. and Chang, K. 1999. “Sociology Between Western Theory and Korean Reality.”International Sociology, 14(2), 139-156.
• Parsons, Talcott. 1970. The Social System. London: Routledge.

POTLUCK

Week 8 (3/3) Emotion Management

• Hochschild, Arlie. Managed Heart (ALL)

Recommended:

• Kemper, Theodore D. 1981. “Social Constructionist and Positivist Approaches to the Sociology of Emotions.” American Journal of Sociology, 87(2), 336-362.

PROPOSAL DUE

@@@@@@@ SPRING BREAK — NO CLASS 3/10 @@@@@@@

Week 9 (3/17) Habitus, Field, and Capital

CST, 259-266.

• Bourdieu, Pierre Distinction (pp. 1-396, 466-469)

Film: Scene from Phantom of Liberty (Luis Bunuel)–1974

Recommended:

• Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the AmericanUpper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Reay, Diane. 2004. “’It’s All Becoming a Habitus’: Beyond the Habitual Use of Habitus in EducationalResearch.” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 431-444.
• Thevenot, Laurent. 2001. “Pragmatic Regimes Governing the Engagement with the World.” In Theodore Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina and Eike von Savigny Eike (eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, pp.56-73. London: Routledge.

Week 10 (3/24) Disciplinary Power

CST, pp. 185-190.

• Foucault, Michel Discipline and Punish

Recommended:

• Baudrillard, Jean. 1976/2007. Forget Foucault. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).
• Chomsky, Noam and Foucault, Michel. 2006. The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature. NewYork: New Press.
• Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. 2006. “Towards a New Research Agenda? Foucault, Whiteness and IndigenousSovereignty.” Journal of Sociology, 42(4), 383–395.

Week 11 (3/31) Performativity

• Butler, Judith Gender Trouble

Film: Scene from Venus Boys (Gabrielle Bauer)–2002

Recommended:

• Connell, R.W. and Messerschmidt, James. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.”Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859.
• de Beauvoir, Simone. 1953/1989. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books.
• Jackson, Stevi. 2001. “Why a Materialist Feminism is (Still) Possible—and Necessary.” Women’s StudiesInternational Forum, 24(3-4), 283-293.
• Lopata, Helena Z. and Thorne, Barrie. 1978. “On the Term ‘Sex Roles.’” Signs, 3(3), 718-721.
• McClintock, Ann. 1995. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. NewYork: Routledge.
• Mouffe, Chantal. 1983. “The Sex/Gender System and the Discursive Construction of Women’sSubordination” in Sakari Hanninen and Leena Pald (eds.) Rethinking Ideology, pp.139-144. New York: International General/IMMRC.
• Samuels, Ellen. 2002. “Critical Divides: Judith Butler’s Body Theory and the Question of Disability.”NWSA Journal, 14(3), 58-76.
• West, Candace and Zimmerman, Don H. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society, 1(2), 25-151.
• Yuval-Davis, Nira. 1997. “Women, Citizenship and Difference.” Feminist Review, 57, 4-27.

IV. Globalization and Hybridity

Week 12 (4/7) Globalization, Citizenship, and Solidarity

• Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1976. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387-415.
• Ong, Aihwa. 2006. “Mutations in Citizenship.” Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 499-505.
• Dirlik, Arif. 2004. “Spectres of the Third World: Global Modernity and the End of the Three Worlds.” Third World Quarterly, 25(1), 131-148.
• Kurasawa, Fuyuki. 2004. “A Cosmopolitanism from Below: Alternative Globalization and the Creation of a Solidarity without Bounds.” European Journal of Sociology, 45(2), 233-255.

Recommended:

• Beck, Ulrich. 2007. “The Cosmopolitan Condition: Why Methodological NationalismFails.” Theory, Culture & Society, 24(7-8), 286-290.
• Castells, Manuel. 2000. “Toward a Sociology of the Network Society.” ContemporarySociology, 29(5), 693-699.
• Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Massey, Doreen B. 1994. Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
• Robertson, Roland. 1990. “Mapping the Global Condition: Globalization as the Central Concept.” Theory, Culture & Society, 7(2), 15-30.

Week 13 (4/14) Diaspora

• Gilroy, Paul. Black Atlantic

Film: Scene from Daughters of the Dust (Julie Dash)–1992

Recommended:

• Lie, John. 2004. Modern Peoplehood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Omi, Michael and Winant, Howard. 1986. Racial Formation in the United States: From the1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge.
• Winant, Howard. 2000. “Race and Race Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 169-185.
• Zeleza, Paul. 2005. “Rewriting the African Diaspora: Beyond the Black Atlantic.” African Affairs, 104(414), 35-68.

Week 14 (4/21) Summing Up and Crossing Borders—Hybrids, Cyborgs, and the Question of “Nature”

• Anzaldua, Gloria. 1987. “La Consciencia de la Mestiza” In Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Aunt Lute Books. San Francisco: CA.
• Catton, W.R. and Dunlap, R. 1980. “A New Ecological Paradigm for a Post-Exuberant Sociology.” American Behavioral Scientist, 24(1), 15-47.
• Haraway, Donna. 1991. “Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
• Latour, Bruno. 1991. “We Have Never Been Modern.” In CST, pp. 448-460

Recommended:

• Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Beltran, Cristina. 2004. “Patrolling Borders: Hybrids, Hierarchies and the Challenge of Mestizaje.”Political Research Quarterly, 57(4), 595-607.
• Dunlap, Riley. 2002. Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, ContemporaryInsights. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture andSociety, 30(3), 1771-1800.
• Sandoval, Chela. 2000. Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Taylor, Dorceta. 1997. “Women of Color, Environmental Justice, and Ecofeminism.” In Karen J. Warren and Nisvan Erkal (eds.) Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
• University Press.
• Zinn, Maxine Baca and Dill, Bonnie Thornton (1996). “Theorizing Difference from Multiracial Feminism.”Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321-331

POST ROUGH DRAFTS ON ANGEL

Week 15 (4/28) Paper Presentations

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

TEXTS

The required books are at the MSU bookstore. Short, required readings are available via Angel.

(1) Calhoun, Craig et al. 2007. Contemporary Sociological Theory (Reader). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

(2) Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

(3) Hochschild, Arlie. 1983/2003. The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

(4) Foucault, Michel. 1975/1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

(5) Gilroy, Paul. 1993. The Black Atlantic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

(6) Butler, Judith. 1990/2006. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

In addition to the required books and articles, there are recommended readings that I will briefly describe at the beginning of each class to frame the historical and intellectual context of the week’s required readings. The recommended readings include classics, recent theory, and reviews that may be useful for your work in and beyond this course.