Theoria

16 Comments

1. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

   This is not on the same scale and is not as comprehensive, when compared top McDonald above, but for my second year required theory class I use Fred C. Pampel’s Sociological Lives and Ideas: An Introduction to Classical Theorists.” The newest addition has a chapter on WEB Du Bois, along with chapters on Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel and Mead. It is a nice little book, that works well with 2nd year students, I find.

   Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 1:15 pm | Permalink
2. Sarah Najah wrote:

   Firstly, great website. I am intrigued. Second, did you check out Charles Lemert’s famous Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings? It incorporates both women and African-American perspectives…no Tyra Banks top off…haha. Also check out the textbook by Collins and Mackowsky (The Discovery of Society) in particular chapter 11 but this is not as concrete as some of Lemert’s work. I’ll be a frequent visitor here now…finally, intellectual discussion. It is hard to find nowadays.

   Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Permalink
3. Craig wrote:

   Thanks. Some of the students were – quite understandably – concerned about the lack of women and African-Americans on my syllabus. I’m hoping to find something to pass along to those of them who are interested in pursuing the topic further. (Although, technically, I think DuBois is supposed to be covered in their third year “modern social theory” course.)

   Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
4. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

   Interesting questions about what is modern and what is classical.
   But Du Bois was born in 1868…..
   One of the instructors in my department treats classical up to Mead, I believe (although don’t quote me on that!). Simmel was born in 1858, and Mead in 1863.
   rough contemporaries….
   Now, of course, Du Bois lived a particularly long life…

   I am a big supporter of teaching Du Bois, partly because of his intellectual brilliance, partly because of the diversity of research methods he used, and partly because of his role as a public intellectual and public sociologist.
   He is someone we should honor and engage with, in my view.

   At the same time, one thing Lemert does not do, that I think we need to do , and this is tough and difficult at the 2nd year, is mention more of the underside of Du Bois.
   Like his March 16, 1953 obituary for Stalin in the National Guardian (google away) that starts with “Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature” and then gets worse….

   This can be contextualized and historicized (American racism, and state repression) but cannot be ignored, in my view…
   Even for 2nd year students…
   How can one teach Marx and Marxism, without addressing directly Stalinism?

   Neil McLaughlin

   Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 9:33 am | Permalink
5. Sarah Najah wrote:

   Just a comment from a student…we actually learned about Du Bois in first year so bringing him up in second year courses shouldn’t be ignored because chances are, we already heard about it. And though the extensive studying of the theories of Du Bois makes us cringe, it is nonetheless very interesting to compare it on the backbone of Marx :)

   Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
6. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

   I think you are right, Sarah (if I may) that is it good to compare Du Bois to the backbone of Marx, as you nicely put it.
   Nice to hear that Du Bois is covered in 1st year, thus setting up 2nd year Du Bois nicely.
   Glad you look the Collins The Discovery of Society – one of my favourite textbooks – I have used it before, and I think I would like to do so again.
   So it is nice to hear that it is appreciated from a student perspective…..

   Neil McLaughlin

   Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
7. Craig wrote:

   Collins’ book, The Discovery of Society, is great for the sort of course offered at somewhere like York that attempts to run from “classical” to “contemporary” social theory – especially in its most recent edition. But, it suffers from two problems. First, its title is highly misleading! the differentiation between the political, economic and the social (i.e., “the discovery of society”) occurred in the early eighteenth century (e.g., Montesquieu, Ferguson, Hume, Smith) and not in the nineteenth century (Collins starts with Saint-Simon [and not the interesting Saint-Simon at that! although the interesting Saint-Simon certainly had nothing of major importance to say to sociologists] and Comte). Second, what is selected for inclusion and exclusion is arbitrary at best. Pareto shares a chapter with Parsons – fine, Pareto is quite important. But, is Pareto more important than Habermas or Foucault, neither of whom have a chapter? There is no chapter on feminism, be it in the first, second or third waves. To not include distinct chapters on feminism in a textbook like this is ludicrous at best – even if under the guise of “social movements.” I do, however, like that Tocqueville and Nietzsche are included.

   With respect to your periodization question – it strongly speaks to the advantages of side-stepping periodization as a whole and a turn to what Foucault called “problematics.” With the exception of publishers’ catalogues, library catalogues and course calendars, standard periodizations really don’t amount to much other than the inability of bureaucratic logic to relate itself to an excessively complex empirical world!

   Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
8. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

   Craig,

   I don’t disagree, of course, with your point about the 18th century.
   In our program, as a second year required course for all students, doing the 19th century is just about enough.
   For many students, more than enough…
   There are always trade offs, of course.
   More 18th century, means less modern feminism.
   For me, in modern theory Habermas is mentioned, but far less important than a range of others….
   I find Tocqueville far more important than Pareto (although others in my department would disagree).
   And I prefer to get to modern feminism as opposed to spending a lot of time, in essentially doing intellectual history of neglected figures….
   And I like to get to as much of the theory tied specifically to sociological research: more Merton, less Foucault, more Goffman and less Habermas…

   All books have their blinders, as you know, and the trade-offs of one as opposed to another….
   Complex issues, worth perhaps more serious discussion, another time…

   Neil McLaughlin

   Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
9. Craig wrote:

   Given the choice between having students read material with “seductive” value versus covering sociology as such, I’ll do the “seductive” work. Students seem to like the idea of the state of nature, the difference between covenants and contracts, and the possibility (or lack thereof) of a rational basis to society. Similarly, they like Book 1 of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws and his discussion of laws and his development of a new “scientific” cosmology through his re-ordering of the Great Chain of Being. The parts on the mores of women, the Chinese, and creation of violent relations by society are also of interest to them.

   For my part, if we were to reduce “modern” social theory to a big three, it would have to be Foucault, Habermas and Bourdieu. No doubt a moderately misleading descent could be made between each and the big three of “classical” social theory. But that likely doesn’t come as a surprise to you!

   Sunday, February 17, 2008 at 11:26 pm | Permalink
10. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

    Craig,

    I understand your particular choice of priorities, and we need in the modern university approaches such as yours.
    Your students are fortunate (although it might not always seem like a blessing, to every student at every moment in the process, to be reading and/or learning about work from the 18th century!) to be exposed to your ideas and obvious commitment to teaching.
    How this plays out, in a broader context, does involve a range of issues involving the social organization of the university, some of it involving structures, bureaucracies and trade-offs. A longer discussion than is possible here.

    For me, only Bourdieu would make the big three, in contemporary theory….
    Again, a longer discussion involving issues on which reasonable people can disagree…
    Randall Collins would make my big three, FAR ahead of both Foucault and Habermas, for a variety of reasons that I don’t think would surprise you…..

    One of the other issues to be discussed, of course, is the extent to which we should think about our theories in terms of individual theorists….
    I talk about all these kinds of issues, even if only briefly, in my 2nd year theory classes.
    Some of the students like that, and are engaged…
    Others just want to get to the material, carefully laid out for the tests….

    Anyway, even talking about these issues is a sign of caring about teaching, so good for you…
    And good for the undergraduate student, jumping in to the fray! :)

    Neil McLaughlin

    Monday, February 18, 2008 at 8:19 am | Permalink
11. Craig wrote:

    You are right: a reduction of theory to personality is certainly misleading – as is a reduction of theory to context. (Although students tend to like biographical details: Nietzsche likely only had sex one, with a prostitute, most likely contracted syphilis and eventually went insane on account of the disease; Durkheim descended from a (long) line of rabbis, as did Marx; Weber suffered regular and serious bouts of extreme depression; and so on. And, of course, it is significant and likely only possible that Machiavelli wrote The Prince and the Discourses when he did just as it is significant and likely only possible that Smith wrote the Theory of Moral Sentiments when he did.)

    My familiarity with Collins is quite limited and he comes across as a textbook writer to me – like Anthony Giddens or Nik Rose. They may write good textbooks or advanced introductory surveys, but their contribution should not be extended beyond. I find, for instance, many of Collins’ interpretations in Four Sociological Traditions contentious at best. The chapter on Durkheim is especially weak. Otherwise, I’m not particularly familiar with his work – perhaps his chapter in the volume on Durkheim and culture studies edited by Alexander. I’d suggest his work – along with Giddens and Rose – as secondary readings, but I’d never assign it as a primary source.

    Having said that, as a general rule, I avoid making use of secondary sources when I teach and generally avoid having students find secondary sources when they write their assignments for two reasons (1) it makes plagiarism much harder for them bordering on being worthless and (2) it focuses attention on the text at hand rather than on someone else’s take on the test at hand. For the purpose of a second year social theory course, I really don’t care what Quentin Skinner or C.B. Macpherson or Leo Strauss think about Hobbes! And I really don’t think that students should care either.

    Perhaps we should look to organize something at the 2009 Congress around these themes.

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Permalink
12. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

    Craig,

    Randall Collins did indeed write a number of textbooks, including 4 traditions (initially 3!), a textbook on the family, an advanced text on Weberian theory as well as a very good graduate level or advanced undergraduate level book on Contemporary Theory.

    But he also wrote a very important book on The Credentialed Society, a range of important ASR and AJS and Sociological Theories articles on various micro and macro sociological issues (one article that predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, on good sociological grounds), a massive book on The Sociology of Philosophy (which you won’t like, but has had a lot of influence – anyone who emails me at nmclaugh@mcmaster.ca can be emailed a copy of my review, and exchange with Collins on the book), a new important book on theories of violence, a provocative theory of what he calls “Interaction Ritual Chains.”
    And a number of other contributions – he is hardly only a textbook writer…
    He is quite an original theorist, in my view,

    More generally, I think that “historical context” and “biography” both matter, both for theory and undergrad teaching.
    But both can be overplayed…….
    I understand your position on original readings, and the other major person who teaches theory in my department would agree with you.
    I think “not caring” what about the secondary literature says is a bit strong, but I understand and respect your view of teaching theory, even if I do not agree.
    Especially for 2nd year classes.

    I would be happy to be involved in organizing something on these broad issues, at the 2009 Congress.
    Important issues..
    And a good idea…

    Neil McLaughlin

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
13. Craig wrote:

    Admittedly, I forgot about the Sociology of Philosophies which has been on my “to read list” for a number of years, but it always set aside in favor of something else.

    With respect to secondary literature, my point is with respect to undergraduate survey courses – what should be essential is the texts themselves and not the history of the reception of those texts. The history of reception is certainly appropriate in an upper-year or graduate seminar, but its place should be kept to a minimum in survey courses. Put another way, Hobbes’ involvement in the Virginia Company, his distaste for what he perceived to be rampant scholasticism, and his position on the engagement controversy should not be topics of discussion – and especially secondary reading – in a second year survey course. His (non) involvement with the Royal Society and his correspondence with continental thinkers could conceivably be a reasonable topic of discussion.

    There’s a review of Collins’ book in the reviews forum at the Canadian Journal of Sociology.

    Interesting that you mention the fall of the USSR – I’m “working” on a review of Lefort’s Complications “as we speak.” Lefort’s concept of “regime” is, in my view, an absolutely important contribution to political sociology.

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
14. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

    Craig,

    I think your position on the role of primary texts in a 2nd year class is just that: a position.
    You make the case with care and commitment. I simply disagree, for a range of practical and intellectual reasons….
    I know many valued fellow professors and scholars who view things in a similar way as you do…
    A longer discussion…

    I thought that CJS on-line exchange on Collins was productive.
    Thank you for reminding us of that.

    And I look forward to reading somewhere your argument about Lefort, re: political sociology.
    This is not something I have given a lot of thought to (Lefort, not political sociology), so I will look for it, once you publish your review, which I assume is what you mean when you say you are working on it….

    Neil McLaughlin

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Permalink
15. Craig wrote:

    Neil, have you received much of a response for your special issue on public sociology in the CJS?

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
16. Neil McLaughlin wrote:

    Public Sociology.

    I have recieved one paper so far, which I am sending out to reviewers in the next couple of days…

    And a number of people, at various levels of the profession, have told me they are working on essays….

    So I am expecting a fairly substantial number of submissions, a rigorous review process, and ultimately an exciting issue and debate….

    Neil McLaughlin

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment