Download Sociology 265A / W2015: Classical Social Theory Professor

Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
Sociology 265A / W2015: Classical Social Theory
Professor Stephanie Mudge ([email protected])
Time/Location: W 9-11:50, Sociology Boardroom (SS&H 1291)
Course website: https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/portal/site/classicaltheory2015
Course email address: [email protected]
Office hours: W 1:30-3:30, 2257 SS&H – or by appointment
Introduction. Welcome to classical sociological theory. The texts we will read this quarter are
among the basic building blocks of Western sociology. Like all texts, they have limits and blind
spots—but, unlike most texts, they have been read and re-read, worked with, and built on by a lot
of smart people for around a century. A main aim of this course is to help you understand the
contours of this long conversation. Other aims are to help you build an understanding of the
history of the discipline, the shared conceptual vocabulary of Western sociologists, and your own
theorizing abilities.
The “classical” designation generally denotes authors and texts dating from the
early-to-mid-1800s through the 1940s. From this period, our work will focus on Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels, Max Weber, Èmile Durkheim; the American pragmatist thinkers John Dewey
and G.H. Mead; and the Frankfurt School theorists Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer and
Theodor Adorno.
… And I do mean work. Reading theory is not just reading. It means working with texts in order
to acquire an ability to view the world through the theorist’s lens. This involves understanding
the context of the work, and the theorist’s life, well enough to separate what a text might have
meant at the time it was written from its meaning(s) in the present. It also involves learning to
distinguish the wheat from the chaff: that is, making informed decisions about what to dwell on,
and what to touch on lightly. Last but not least, it means being ever-curious to read more and
better, and to think about all the ways in which the theory holds up (or doesn’t) to social reality
as we know it.
The good news is, if we do this course right, it should help you see the world differently and
become a better sociologist in the process. The bad news is that there is no shortcut. The reading
load for this course is heavy, expectations are high, and theoretical writing is no walk in the park.
But it’s worth it.
Required readings. Every one of the texts for this course should be in any sociologist's
collection. Please get actual physical copies of the edition listed, so that you can mark things up
and we can work together using common references.
Required texts, for purchase at the university bookstore:
Dewey,
John. 1922 [2011].
978-0486420974
Human Nature & Conduct. Dover Publications. ISBN
Durkheim, Émile. 1897 [1979]. Suicide. A Study in Sociology. John A. Spaulding and George
Simpson, Translators. Free Press. ISBN 978-0684836324
page 1 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
Durkheim, Émile. 1912 [1995]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.
Translator. Free Press. ISBN 978-0029079379
Durkheim, Émile. 1893 [1997].
978-0684836386
The Division of Labor in Society.
Karen E. Fields,
Free Press.
ISBN
Tucker, Robert C. ed., 1978, The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edition. W.W. Norton & Company.
ISBN 978-0393090406
Weber, Max. 1958. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills,
Translators. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195004625
Weber, Max. 1904-1905/1930 [2001]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
(Routledge Classics). Talcott Parsons, Translator. ISBN 978-0415254069
We will also read selections, to be provided by the instructor, from:
Durkheim, Èmile. 1895-1897, in The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology
and its Method. Edited with an introduction by Steven Lukes. Translated by W.D. Halls.
New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, Èmile. 1957 [1992]. Professional Ethics & Civic Morals. Routledge.
Durkheim, Èmile. 1973. On Morality and Society. Robert N. Bellah, ed. University of Chicago
Press.
Horkheimer, Max & Theodor W. Adorno. 1947 [2002]. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical
Fragments. Edited by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr; translated by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self and Society, from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist.
Edited with an Introduction by Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weber, 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. The Free Press.
Weber, 1978. Economy & Society, Vol.s I & II. Edited by Guenther Roth & Claus Wittich. University
of California Press.
Note: if you are interested in having a more complete theory library then you should buy the
works listed above, and a good number of other things too—see next.
Non-required readings—or, how to fill out your theory library. Sociological theory has a lot
of pre-history, including the works of early political philosophers and classical liberals; German
idealist philosophers; the French physiocrats and philosophes; and the English utilitarians. Some
of these works are still referenced and read in sociology, but they predate what many would
consider “social theory.” It’s undoubtedly helpful to know this prehistory, or at least the contours
of it. In the category of works understood as social theory proper, however, there are also a lot of
further readings to consider getting your hands on. In roughly chronological order, some are:
● Marcel Mauss’ Sacrifice (1898 [1964], with Henri Hubert), Primitive Classification (1903 [1963],
with Durkheim), and The Gift (1925 [1967]).
● Georg Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money (1900 [2011]) and On Individuality and Social Forms
([1971]).
page 2 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
● VI Lenin’s classic essay “What is to be done?” (1902) and The State and Revolution (1918).
● Rosa Luxemburg’s “Organizational questions of the Russian social democracy” (also known by
the title “Leninism or Marxism?”) (1904) and Georg Lukács’ History and Class Consciousness
(1923).
● Sigmund Freud’s Introductory Lectures in Psycho-analysis (1915-1917 [1966]) and Civilization
and Its Discontents (1930 [1961])
● Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks (1929-1935 [1971]).
● Karl Mannheim’s Ideology & Utopia (1936).
● Norbert Elias’ The Civilizing Process (1936).
● Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex (1949).
● From North America, consider the work of pragmatist philosophers WI James and Charles
Sanders Peirce and the sociologists Charles Cooley, WEB DuBois, Herbert Blumer, and Erving
Goffman. (Note: a massive bibliography and repository of ‘Meadian’ works can be found via The
Mead Project.)
o
Last but not least, from once-dominant-but-now-defunct structural-functionalism:
Talcott Parsons’ The Structure of Social Action (1937) and The Social System (1951), and
Robert K. Merton’s Social Theory and Social Structure (1949).
How to read theory. Here are some tips:
1. Contextualize the theorist. I will provide some context, but it is also up to you to take some
time to figure out who the theorist was and what his/her world might have been like.
Most of the works we are reading provide some kind of biographical introduction. I will
also make some useful background readings available. Use those resources and whatever
other reliable source materials you can put your hands on.
2. Read closely, iteratively, and thoroughly. I would recommend reading in two phases.
a. First look over the entire reading—even if you’ve only been assigned to read a portion
of it—taking note of the structure of the book, chapter titles, subheadings, prefaces,
footnotes/endnotes, and afterwords. Mark sections or passages that seem most
interesting or important.
b. Then, read and mark up your text, spending more time on sections you’ve marked
ahead of time, with the aim of facilitating easy reference during discussions: highlight
important questions, concepts and definitions, arguments, and asides; summarize
important things in marginal notes; mark out passages that are troubling or puzzling.
3. Write up your own memos, thoughts, and ideas as you read, or just after you read, or both.
Don’t just finish the reading and walk away.
4. Keep these questions in mind as you read and note-take:
a. What problematics/kinds of questions/historical problems drive the theorist’s work?
How do the specific topics the theorist takes up fit into this overall perspective?
b. What is the theorist’s conception of historical change; what are history’s causal
page 3 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
drivers? Where does the theorist think history is going, and why?
c. What are the theorist’s most important, interesting, and/or distinctive concepts; how
are they developed and defined; how do they interrelate?
❖ Keep in mind that there is a useful distinction to be made between analytical
concepts (e.g., “ideal type,” “social fact”)—that is, concepts meant to facilitate
the practice of sociological analysis—and historical/empirical concepts (e.g.,
“the state,” “capitalism”), meant to capture some feature of social reality.
d. What is the ontological, epistemological, and methodological stance of the
theorist—both explicit, in the theorist’s statements on social science and method, and
implicit, in his/her own research? How well do they match up?
e. What does the theorist’s perspective bring to light, and what does it tend to obscure?
f. What are the normative or political implications of the theorist’s perspective?
5. Work together! Theorizing is a collective effort, and this class should be no exception.
The Rules
1. Make this class a priority. Do all the reading, work together, and come ready to dig in.
2. Participate. It is hard to know what you think, or for the instructor to know what you think,
unless you say it out loud. Make it a habit. If there are ways I can facilitate your participation,
please tell me what they are.
❖ Don’t be afraid to make a contribution or point out a passage that seems to contradict
conventional understandings of a text or your peers’/instructor’s take. Trust your
judgment, and say what you think.
❖ Critical engagement requires making room for respectful disagreement. We should be
able to have arguments and disagreements in this class and still leave the room as friends.
3. Stay close to the text. Avoid broad overview statements that don’t link up with any particular
place in the text. Class discussion should happen with books and notes open.
❖ If we get away from the text in class discussions, don’t be surprised if I follow-up with the
question: “Where does s/he say that?”
❖ Don’t go afield. In class discussions, please avoid bringing up materials beyond the
assigned readings for the course. Mastering what we have will keep us plenty busy.
❖ Do feel free to bring in historical or observational examples in order to discuss a concept
or argument, but don’t overdo it, and make sure that everyone can engage.
4. Park your preconceptions, and your politics, at the door. Don’t: assume that you already know
the text, even if you’ve read it before or you think you know what the point is; get a few pages
in and make a snap decision about whether it’s useful or not; dismiss/embrace a theorist’s
work for mainly normative or political reasons.
5. If you are going to critique, do it right. Read with the author before you start working against
page 4 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
the author. In the readings you may find language and arguments that offend you, or that
seem wrong or naïve. Decide whether those things really undermine the text as a whole. If
not, move on; if you think they are terminal weaknesses, then you should still keep reading to
make sure you’re right to be able to clearly articulate what those weaknesses are.
6. Come to my office hours to talk about anything related to the course. If you cannot attend
scheduled office hours, make an appointment.
7. Take every opportunity to write. Theory doesn’t form in your head and then appear, fully
formed, on paper. Practice, practice, practice.
Written requirements
1. Weekly comments. Due by email by noon on the day before class meets, sent to the following
address: [email protected]. Comments should have three elements:
(1) direct quotations of two brief passages that you think are especially important, especially
puzzling, or both;
(2) interpretation of what the passages mean: restate what the theorist is saying in your own
words;
(3) arguments as to the broader significance of each passage. For example, you might discuss
whether/how the passage clarifies a key theme or concept in the theorist’s work; bears
implications that go beyond the particular problematic or subject matter of the reading; or
contradicts or complicates the theorist’s arguments in some way.
NOTE: students leading class discussions don’t have to do weekly comments—see next.
2. Student-led discussions, with memos & diagrams. Each week at least two students will be
responsible for leading discussion. Student discussion leaders should prepare two things:
(1) A 3-to-4 page single-spaced discussion memo dealing with the main arguments and key
points in the text(s). Draw attention to important passages, note key concepts and their
definitions, lay out central arguments, and raise questions for discussion. Note page
numbers, important sections, etc., for reference.
❖ Send your memo to [email protected] by 5pm on the
evening before class.
(2) A diagram of historical/causal arguments and conceptual relationships, to be distributed
and presented in-class. This can be done in hard copy and/or by powerpoint (or
whatever). Either way, please always give a hard copy to your instructor.
❖ The diagram can be sent out along with the discussion memo the evening
before, or it can be provided separately during the class session.
3. An initial exercise in conceptualization. In about 3 single-spaced pages or 1500 words,
identify two distinctive ways of thinking about a social phenomenon of your choosing and
page 5 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
speculate about the research implications of those conceptualizations. More specifically:
● [Pt1] Start with a brief introduction of the phenomenon. It can be something you’ve been
working with or it can be new—say, something you read about in the news, or saw in a
documentary. The important criteria are that it is a social thing—a pattern of behavior, a
recognized social problem, an event or series of related events, an organization, a trend or
fashion, etc.—and that it is interesting, not that you are an expert on it.
● [Pt2] Then, formulate two different ways of answering the following questions about your
phenomenon: What kind of phenomenon is it? What more general kind of thing is the
phenomenon a case of?
● [Pt3] If you have succeeded in conceptualizing the phenomenon in truly distinctive ways,
then those conceptualizations should have distinctive research implications. In a
concluding paragraph or two, discuss what you think those implications might be: what
would you need to do, collect, and analyze in order to understand the phenomenon, as
conceptualized?
o Here, imagine you are in a world in which none of the following are problems: time
and money constraints; limits on human abilities; the non-existence of data; etc.
● This assignment will be graded on a check minus/check/check plus scale. It will not be
evaluated in terms of your empirical/historical knowledge, your command of theory, or
your knowledge of existing datasets and analytical methods. It will be evaluated based on
the quality and clarity of the writing, how well you succeeded in articulating two truly
distinctive ways of conceptualizing the phenomenon, and whether your discussion of
research implications reflects that distinctiveness.
● Due date: by noon Friday of the second week of classes.
4. A compare & contrast paper + a theoretically informed revision of your
conceptualization exercise, both due one week after the last class meeting. Please deliver
them electronically, by email ([email protected]), as a pdf or Word (.docx) document.
1) A compare-and-contrast discussion of how any two theorists you read for this course
conceptualize and analyze the social world, selecting points of comparison that you find
most interesting or important.
a. Using the questions under “How to read theory,” point #4 (above), start thinking
early about which theorists you want to compare and the main points of
comparison you might like to develop.
b. At least 4 single-spaced pages or about 2,000 words, excluding references.
2) A revision of your conceptualization exercise, now drawing from at least two of the
theorists read in class. You may use the same theorists as in Part 1, or not; you can also use
more than two theorists. Articulate as clearly as possible how you might revise your
conceptualizations and the analytical implications thereof in light of the theorists’ work,
and why.
page 6 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
a. The aim of this revision is to help you, and your instructor, see how working with
classical theory has helped you develop your conceptual skills.
b. At least 5 single-spaced pages or about 2500 words, excluding references.
❖ Please note: both should make lots of references to texts.
Week-by-week schedule. Generally, the class format will be primarily student-led, with
break(s) as needed. I will intervene where useful, and will then spend about the last 30 minutes
of class offering some summary commentary and introducing readings for the next week.
Note: readings to be provided by the instructor are marked with an asterisk (*).
WEEK 1. Introduction
Required readings: none.
Week 2. Marx I – the critique of philosophy & political economy
Marx, in R. Tucker (ed), The Marx-Engels Reader:
“Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844” [1844]:
o
o
o
pp. 70-81
pp. 84 [bottom, from paragraph starting with “That the revolutionary movement…”] to
88 [top, through paragraph ending with “human use”]
pp. 93 [“The Meaning of Human Requirements”] to 98 [to paragraph ending with
“English police”]
“Alienation and Social Classes” [1845], pp. 133-135
“Theses on Feuerbach” [1845], pp. 143-145
“The German Ideology” [1846], pp. 146-175 and 186-200
“Wage Labour and Capital” [1847], pp. 203-217
“Capital, Volume One” [1867], pp. 302-364, 384-386, 392-397, 403-436
“Capital, Volume Three” [1867?], pp. 439-442
** Conceptualization exercises are due by 12pm Friday of this week **
Please provide them to me in hard copy (either in-hand or slid under my office door) or
email them to [email protected] as .docx or pdf files.
WEEK 3. Marx II, and Engels too – historical materialism as scientific-historical analysis
Marx and Engels, in R. Tucker (ed). The Marx-Engels Reader:
By Marx:
“Manifesto of the Communist Party” [1848], pp. 469-500
“The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850” [1850], pp. 586-594
“The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” [1852], pp. 594-617
“The Civil War in France” [1871], pp. 618-652
page 7 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
By Engels:
“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” [1880], pp. 683-717
“The Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State” [1884], pp. 734-759
“The Tactics of Social Democracy” [1895], pp. 556-573
WEEK 4. Weber I – economy & culture
Weber 1992 [1905]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Entire, with emphasis on
Part II, pp. 53-125.
Weber [1915]. “Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions.” Pp. 323-359. In
Gerth & Mills, eds., From Max Weber.
* Weber [1918-1920]. “Sociological Categories of Economic Action.” In Roth & Wittich, eds.,
Economy & Society, Vol. I (1978).
o
o
o
o
o
o
“The Concept of Economic Action,” pp. 63-68
“The Primary Consequences of the Use of Money. Credit,” pp. 80-82
“Formal and Substantive Rationality of Economic Action,” pp. 85-86
“The Concept and Types of Profit-Making. The Role of Capital,” pp. 90-94
“Social Aspects of the Division of Labor,” pp. 130-137
“The Expropriation of Workers from the Means of Production,” pp. 137-140
* Weber [1918-1920?]. “Household, Enterprise and Oikos.” In Roth & Wittich, eds., Economy &
Society, Vol. I (1978).
o
“The Disintegration of the Household: The Rise of the Calculative Spirit and of the Modern
Capitalist Enterprise,” pp. 375-380
WEEK 5. Weber II – power & politics
Weber [1914]. “Part II: Power.” pp. 159-244. In Gerth & Mills, eds., From Max Weber.
Weber [1918]. “Politics as a Vocation.” Pp. 77-115 [through paragraph ending with “sense of
proportion”]. In Gerth & Mills, eds., From Max Weber.
* Weber [1918-1920?]. “The Types of Legitimate Domination.” In Roth & Wittich, eds.,
Economy & Society, Vol. I (1978).
o
o
“The Basis of Legitimacy,” “Legal Authority with a Bureaucratic Staff,” “Traditional
Authority,” “Charismatic Authority,” & “The Routinization of Charisma,” pp. 212-231,
241-249, 251-252.
“The Transformation of Charisma in a Democratic Direction” & “Direct Democracy and
Representative Administration,” pp. 266-271, 289-299.
WEEK 6. Durkheim I – social diagnosis & the science of morals
Durkheim [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society:
“Introduction,” pp. 1-8
“Book I: The Functions of the Division of Labor,” pp. 11-87 and 101-175
page 8 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
“Book II: The Causes and Conditions,” pp. 200-225, 275-282
“Book III: The Abnormal Forms,” pp. 291-322
“Conclusion,” pp. 329-341
Durkheim [1897]. “Introduction” and “Book II: Social Causes and Social Types,” pp. 41-53 and
145-276. In Suicide.
WEEK 7. Durkheim II – extending the science of morals to politics, culture & cognition
* Durkheim [1890-1900]. Professional Ethics and Civic Morals.
“Civic Morals,” pp. 42-51, 61-63, 68-75, 76-84
“The Right of Contract”/”Morals of Contractual Relations,” pp. 196-220
Durkheim [1912]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life:
“Introduction,” pp. 1-20
“Book I”: “Preliminary Questions,” pp. 21-44 and 84-98
“Book II”: “The Elementary Beliefs,” pp. 99-126, 141-157, and 190-275
“Conclusion,” pp. 418-448
* Durkheim [1914]. “The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Conditions,” pp. 149-163 in
Robert N. Bellah, ed., Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society.
WEEK 8. Sociology & its method
Marx [1844-1859], in R. Tucker (ed), The Marx-Engels Reader:
“Marx on the History of His Opinions” – or, the preface to “A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy,” pp. 3-6
“For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing,” pp. 12-15
“The German Ideology,” pp. 147-155 & 163-172
“The Grundrisse,” pp. 222-228 & 236 [paragraph starting with “The conclusion we reach …”]
through 246
“From the Afterword to the Second German Edition” (of Das Kapital), pp. 299-302
Engels [1880-1895], in R. Tucker (ed), The Marx-Engels Reader:
“The Tactics of Social Democracy,” pp. 556-558
“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” pp. 694-700
“Letters on Historical Materialism,” pp. 760-768
* Weber [1904], in Weber (1903-1917 [1949]), The Methodology of the Social Sciences.
“'Objectivity' in Social Science and Social Policy,” pp. 89 [paragraph starting with “We have in
abstract economic theory…”] through 112
* Weber [1914], in Economy & Society, Vol. I:
“The Definitions of Sociology and of Social Action,” pp. 4-23
“Types of Social Action,” pp. 24-25
* Durkheim [1895-1897], in The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology
and its Method:
page 9 of 10 Mudge, 265A - W2015 - v01/13/15
“Introduction,” pp. 48-49
“What is a Social Fact?” pp. 50-59
“Rules for the Observation of Social Facts,” pp. 60-84
“Rules for the Explanation of Social Facts,” pp. 119-146
“Marxism and Sociology: The Materialist Conception of History,” pp. 167-174
* optional: Fauconnet, Paul and Marcel Mauss [1901], from Loïc Wacquant, unpublished (?)
translation. “Sociology: Object, Method, Divisions.” Pp. I-2 through I-24.
WEEK 9. American pragmatism – self & conduct
Dewey, Human Nature & Conduct. Entire.
* Mead [1934]. Mind, Self and Society, from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist.
From “Part II: Mind”:
o
“Mind and the Symbol,” pp. 117-125
From “Part III: The Self”:
o
o
o
o
o
o
“The Self and the Organism,” pp. 135-144
“Play, the Game, and the Generalized Other,” pp. 152-164
“The “I” and the “Me”,” pp. 173-178
“Mind as the Individual Importation of the Social Process,” pp. 186-192
“The Realization of the Self in the Social Situation,” pp. 200-208
“The Social Creativity of the Emergent Self,” 214-222
From “Part IV: Society”:
o
o
o
o
o
o
“The Basis of Human Society: Man and Insects,” pp. 227-230, 234-235, 237
“Organism, Community, and Environment,” pp. 245-253
“The Social Foundations and Functions of Thought and Communication,” pp. 253-260
“The Community and the Institution,” pp. 260-273
“Democracy and Universality in Society,” pp. 281-289
“Conflict and Integration,” pp. 303-310
WEEK 10. Critical theory – culture & critique
* Benjamin, Walter. 1936. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Here.
* Horkheimer, Max & Theodor Adorno, 1947. The Dialectic of Enlightenment:
“Preface (1944 and 1947),” pp. xiv-xix
“The Concept of Enlightenment,” pp. 1-34 (selected pages)
“The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” pp. 94-136
page 10 of 10