Download THE SOCIOLOGICAL SPIRIT (Second edition) Earl Babbie Chapter

THE SOCIOLOGICAL SPIRIT (Second edition)
Earl Babbie
Chapter 1 An Idea whose Time Has Come
The Role of Reason: Theory
To understand the function of theory, we need to consider a few of its elements.
First, concepts are the mental images we use to bring order to the mass of specific experiences we have.
(18)
None of the paradigms is better than the other; each simply offers a different perspective that might be
more or less useful for a given purpose. That’s the nature of paradigms. (21)
There are three major paradigms commonly used in modern sociology. . . . The interactionist paradigm
in sociology focuses on social life as the process of give and take in which individuals come to grips with
each other, forming common definitions of the situation they find themselves in. This paradigm is
particularly useful in understanding the ways in which we create the rules of social life.
A very different paradigm, the social system paradigm, or functionalist paradigm, tends to focus on the
structure of social life. A group of people, as large as a whole society, can usefully be seen as
constituting an integrated system in which each individual has a part to play. (23)
Finally, the conflict paradigm focuses on the competitive struggle among individuals and groups in
society. . . . Typically, these struggles grow out of the unequal distribution of quantities perceived as
desirable and limited, such as money, property, prestige, and power. This paradigm is particularly useful
in understanding how and why people break the rules and how the rules themselves change. (24)
Sociological Questions and Answers
Science is sometimes better at raising questions than at finding answers to them. It would be useful for
you to regard science as an ongoing inquiry, recognizing that questions initiate new avenues of inquiry,
while answers close them down. . . . Even when we discover new and seemingly better answers about
something, it’s important to hold them as tentative. (25)
In sociology, anything we learn can change things, so no knowledge can be counted on to remain true.
Thus, we need to keep asking questions. (26)
Chapter 2 Identity
A great deal of prejudice, hatred, and war in the world is grounded in people identifying with statuses
they occupy and insisting that theirs are somehow superior to those occupied by others. (42)
W. I. Thomas, a member of sociology’s “Chicago School” along with Mead and Cooley, is most
remembered for his assertion that “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
(44)
Chapter 3 Groups
Social groups have a reality, a being, that is more than just the sum of the individuals comprising them.
(46)
Groups and Non-Groups
. . . sociologists distinguish groups form aggregations: simple gatherings of people, such as an audience
or a crowd. . . . Similarly, sociologists distinguish social categories from what they mean by a group. (47)
Although there are no hard and fast rules about what does or does not constitute a social group,
sociologists generally agree on certain characteristics: Shared interests . . . Interactions . . . Structure . . .
Identity (47)
Groups and Persistence
One of the things that makes groups special is that they persist, even though the individuals involved
come and go. (49)
Primary and Secondary Groups
[Charles Horton] Cooley was particularly interested in what he called primary relationships, which he
described as “those characterized by intimate face-to-face association and cooperation. They are
primary in several senses, but chiefly in that they are fundamental in forming the social nature and
ideals of the individuals.” (50)
Secondary relationships, by contrast, are based specifically on the statuses people occupy and the role
expectations connecting them. (51)
Reference Groups and Identity
Sociologists use the term reference group to describe groups to which we refer in assessing our
particular situations. . . . Specifically, many reference groups would appropriately be termed social
categories, based on statuses. (54)
In this fashion, reference groups become guides for and goals of behavior. . . . Reference groups can also
condition how we feel about our lives. (54)
In-Groups and Out-Groups
Sociologists use the term in-group in reference to those people who constitute a group or category you
belong to and identify with. The term out-group refers to the people who don’t belong to it. (58)
In-groups and out-groups offer more than mere identification. They can determine who interacts with
whom. They also provide the basis for intergroup hostilities: prejudice and hatred. Just as “up” needs
“down” to exist, it sometimes seems that people can only feel good about the groups they belong to by
feeling they are superior to other groups. (58)
Groups and the Definition of Reality
In real life, we make up the same kinds of agreements, and it’s difficult sometimes to recognize them as
anything other than the truth. (60)
No matter how real it all seems to the child, we can recognize his or her experience as growing out of a
process of group agreement. (61)
. . . we humans have a tendency to reify our opinions – to treat them a though they represented some
kind of ultimate truth or reality. And . . . we saw how important opinions seem to be in our definitions of
who we are: both in the images we present to others and in how we actually feel about ourselves. The
key point of this chapter is that the ideas we come to reify and use to define ourselves often originate in
groups. (61)
Chapter 4 Organizations
What’s an Organization?
That kind of spontaneous, unorganized cooperation is sometimes called alignment: a group of
individuals sharing a common purpose with each doing whatever is appropriate to achieve it. (68)
Bureaucracy
The epitome of formal organization is bureaucracy. . . . Max Weber (1846-1920) did the earliest
comprehensive analysis of this form of organization, and his observations are still generally applicable to
today’s bureaucracies. (69)
Parkinson stated his law as follows: “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” No
matter how little work is to be done or how much time is available, the work will be stretched out
enough to fit perfectly within the time at hand.
Chapter 5 Institutions
In short, although many ways of satisfying the needs of society and of individuals are possible, there is a
powerful tendency to institutionalize one form among the many possibilities. This means that one way
of doing things becomes accepted, legitimate, customary, expected, even required. (84)
Sociologists traditionally have spoken of five major institutions governing different domains of social life:
family, religion, government, economy, and education.
The Components of Institutions
Let’s begin with norms: expected patterns of behavior. (86)
Norms, then, represent the ways we expect people to behave. . . . This is accomplished through the use
of positive and negative sanctions: rewards and punishments. (87)
Most norms, perhaps, have a more logical place within society. Specifically, norms are often justified or
legitimated on the basis of values. . . . Finally, values are, themselves, justified on the basis of beliefs:
vies about what is true. (88)
Institutional Conservatism
Whatever individual or societal needs an institution addresses, its most deliberate and unfailing first
purpose is to perpetuate itself. . . . The obvious function of sanctions, of course, is to perpetuate the
norms they are associated with. (90)
Institutional Perpetuation as Personal Matter
A great deal of what we take for granted in society gets perpetuated through socialization into the
agreements comprising our social institutions. (91)
Internalizing those agreements – making them a part of our personal feelings – can be an even more
powerful force. . . . Internalization is not limited to “important” matters but includes mundane or
common place matters as well. (92)
To the extent that changing an institution would violate someone’s identity, the institution is, to that
degree, protected from change. Notice that society is structured in such a way that institutions and
personal identities are interwoven just as a matter of natural course. (93)
Institutional Change
Because institutions are so extensively lined to one another, their conflicts often result in extensive
institutional change. . . . Changes in one institution, then, can ripple across other institutions. (96)
On the one hand, they have been designed for survival: sanctions, internalizations, vested interests,
personal identity, and institutional linkages all conspire to keep everything the same, year after year,
generation after generation. . . . Yet, at the same time, we see that social change is inevitable. It is
occurring constantly, every day of your life. The rules for living are under continuous amendment. (98)
Chapter 6 Culture and Society
Very often, that which makes good sense in terms of individual self-interest constitutes a disaster for
society as a whole. There is a direct parallel between the tragedy of the commons and the situation of
birthrates and overpopulation in the Third World. (101)
Culture
In sociological and anthropological usage, culture typically refers to the totality of institutional patterns
in a society – its beliefs, values, and norms, along with its symbols and physical artifacts. (101)
Sociologists use the term subcultures in reference to the cultures of the (sub)groups that make up a
society. I hasten to add that subcultures are not homogeneous either: each has its variations. (105)
Sociologists use the term ethnocentrism in reference to the view that your culture is superior to other
cultures. . . . There are two major disadvantages to ethnocentrism: one personal and one social. On the
personal level, ethnocentrism is like a set of blinders, shutting you off from new experiences – some of
which you might find you enjoy. In his sense, ethnocentrism drastically narrows your experience of living.
On a social level, ethnocentrism lays the basis of intergroup hatred and violence. (105)
Unlike ethnocentrism, sociology promotes cultural relativity: the view of cultural differences as merely
different, not better or worse than each other. (106)
If you are willing to approach the study of culture with the view that differences are merely difference,
not truths and fallacies, you will be in a better position to discover how societies actually operate. . . . In
any event, you can’t make these kinds of determinations if you start with the view that some patterns
are intrinsically superior to others. (106)
Society
To begin, sociologists often use the term social structure in reference to the way statuses are linked to
one another in organized human affairs. (107)
A social system is essentially a social structure with a dynamic quality added. If social structure were
likened to an automobile sitting in a parking lot, a social system would be like the same car with its
engine running, roaring down the highway. (110)
Thus, to understand social systems, it is useful to consider what it takes for the system itself to survive.
(116)
Chapter 7 Inequality
Some Sociological Insights
The most important form of inequality is the organized and persistent stratification of large segments of
society: men generally doing better than women, for example; whites doing better than blacks. (131)
Rather, I have wanted to demonstrate that we often tend to approach social problems such as inequality
too simplistically and that we are not very effective when we do so. Sociology offers insights into the
complexities of social life. Sociological paradigms such as the social systems and the conflict models, for
example, offer special insights into matters of inequality, thus empowering you to exercise your critical
thinking in a way that can make a difference in the world. (134)
Chapter 8 Freedom versus Order
Deviance, Freedom, and Responsibility
I think the political and general public acceptance of this sociological view has been an improvement on
the earlier views of deviance. At the very least, it opens up possibilities for rehabilitation and takes
account of mitigating circumstances where appropriate. More importantly, it opens up new avenues for
the prevention of crime – addressing the root causes than appearance.
These advantages, however, have come at a price: the discounting of individual responsibility. Although
it is humane and compassionate to understand that the unemployed and impoverished ghetto dweller,
for example was driven into crime by his or her environment, this view implicitly says that person is
inferior to those environmental forces – rather like a puppet. (147)
Thus, as we’ve seen, the notion of individual freedom conflicts with order in two ways. On the one hand,
social order can only be created through the reduction of freedom: we all have to give up some degree
of freedom in order to live together in reasonable harmony. At the same time, and more profoundly, the
search for order in our understanding of human behavior mounts an even more subtle attack on the
idea of freedom. (148)
Chapter 9 Social Change
In fact, society is every bit as fundamentally a matter of change as of stability.
Conflict and Change
Rather, it is merely a recognition that social life is a complex fabric – every negative has positive aspects,
just as every positive has negative aspects. To fail to see and acknowledge this complexity is to remain
partially blind to the realities of society and hence to become victims of its functioning. We can never
take effective charge of society until we are willing and able to understand it. Specifically, we cannot
simply turn aside from conflict as if it were always and totally negative. (161)
Chapter 10 The Global Picture
World-Class Systems
Bureaucracy
It [bureaucracy] existed over three thousand years ago in China’s Yin Dynasty, brought Europe out of
feudalism, and is operating around the world today. (167)
A Sociological Paradox
In November 1956, less than a year after Ms. Parks’s lonely act of conscience, the U.S. Supreme Court
declared that racial segregation in public facilities was unconstitutional. . . . Only an individual can make
that happen. Although we can easily mislead ourselves by thinking that each of us has the same power
to affect changes in society, we can also mislead ourselves by thinking we don’t. (192)
Ultimately, institutions don’t act: neither do organizations or groups. Only the individuals involved can
decide and act, and in any instance someone must take the first step. At the same time, individuals
almost never make decision s or take actions in isolation. They are always influenced to some degree by
those around them and by the nature of the social structures they live in. Society, then, is a paradoxical
interplay between our individual and corporate identities and lives. Sociology is devoted to the mastery
of that paradox. (193)
The Essential Wisdom of Sociology
7. Institutions are inherently conservative.
Rather, institutions are structured so as to ensure their own survival, They are fundamentally
conservative in the sense of “conservation,” not in the conservative-versus-liberal sense. Moreover, in
an integrated society, institutions support each other’s survival. (202)
The idea of institutional conservatism usually provides a fruitful context in which to introduce other
basic notions: socialization, internalization, and the ways in which individual identity is woven into
institutional structure.
Comments on “The Essential Wisdom of Sociology” (James A. Davis)
Where is sociology’s comparative advantage? To me it’s obvious. Unlike our academic competitors, we
know things about contemporary reality. We get out there, we talk to real people, we draw our
conclusions from data, not from novels about sensitive young intellectuals, artificial indoor experiments,
inscrutable thought of recherché European pundits, the memoirs of retired diplomats, or ideology. (207)