Final
Scantron
Scores

midterm here

posting after printing final, but here is a very post modernist NEW YORK TIMES article.  August 2008.

[controlled by environment; there are 2 environments:  inner & outer  min 38-43]

?? What is agency as seen by all our thinking groups??

• Marx (none-human nature is warped by class, which brings out A. greed B. survival)

• Durkheim (seeks meaning)

• Weber (agency changes structure)

• Simmel (agency behaves the same in templates of patterns and forms

• Dubois (the lighter you are, the more agency you have [or think you have] and the darker you are the more you have to work to achieve.  This challenge is empowering if met, but not recognized.)

• conflict theorists (agency is used for change or for maintenance, with the latter not even aware of it or what we call "privilege")

• Post Marxian conflict theorists - Frankfurt group, Marcuse, Habermas (agency has been tricked, duped, we are subjects, not actors.  We must change and not be swallowed up.  Moral stance)

• functionalists - consensus theorists (agency is what we socialize to get individuals to fit into the group and agency is structured by social institutions.

• feminists (let's talk about women's agency - or lack thereof)

• Micro - Exchange theorists (with our agency, though unequally distributed, we try to get things - 'balance' sheet:  profit - cost:  profit minus costs)

• Micro - symbolic interactionists (humans' attention is situational, wherein we are busy re-ifying our sense-making apparatus and making adjustments)

• Micro - breaching (warp your - and others' - sense making apparatus)

• Intersectionalists - (agency must be looked at from the little bitty intersections of class, race, age, sex)

• Post Modernists - controlled by virtually everything outside, not just the ruling class, or, the ruling class is 'everywhere'.  Consequently, there is one big illusion of control outside the individual and 6.5 billion true narratives.

• Spiritualists - physics and meaning, Newton, love, change, times, cosmis eras

Habermas takes a step forward from the line of Marxist Conflict Theorists in that he offers a solution to the ever evolving social world by not accepting a society that is “administered” with elite powers and proletariats. The forces of the superstructure are not as powerful as the citizens’ potential to lead a democratic life. In other words, it's up to us.

The modern world is changing quickly and is not determined by the institutions of higher powers, instead advancement and technology can lead to increased consciousness among citizens in society. The growth of individual morality and reason can lead to foster a democratic society where new interests are global and more beneficial to humanity overall. Yet, in this return to a true democracy, individuals face problems in which groups collide in their beliefs and ideals. Habermas states we underestimate the great presence and effect of symbolic interaction and most importantly, communicative action. It is within this concept of communicative action that Habermas expands the concept of interpersonal relationship.

Habermas reveals the quagmire of reaching a democratic solution with religious groups and secular groups. The cognitive awareness by both groups are described by Habermas, bearing the point of view that must be seen by the secular citizen and the religious citizen. Our society has long stood with citizens cognitively accepting a society that has a “continued existence” of religion. The active adaptation of accepting the differences with religious groups requires no more difficulty than using our “cognitive precondition.” (Farganis 410) Individual relationships must find a way not to simply tolerate but to actively adapt to the differences of each individual and group. “This cognitive act of adaptation needs to be distinguished from the political virtue of mere tolerance.” (Farganis, 410)

Habermas poses questions but not answers to how a secular, rationally minded person with scientific knowledge must come to accept the religious doctrines of a religiously faithful individual

Schutz
Berger

Garfinkel

Goffman

Naydler
Smith
Collins
Habermas

HOMANS - from Skinner - skeptical that we just come from norms and values.

An exchange paradigm - like economics, but what IS economics?  not a simple self-interested greedy person or set of persons ... it's "something about" the equilibrium of a group.

Pigeons:  the more hungry, the more peck.  But, time:  satiation or fatigue sets in, so:  chg!
2 people:  emit behavior.  They find each other 'reinforcing' or not. 
Job of soc'T:  discover propositions for frequencies of behavior.  Depends on value for each.

So there is CHOICE  +  FREQUENCIES 
But there is  INNER   +  OUTER         (integrity + being liked and liking social)

call it:  cohesiveness.  cohesiveness means COMMUNICATION   and/or   INTERACTION

         the > you get, the > you give (but it can be on 2 levels, IND SOC)
         the > you get from class the > you give - wow
         the > you get from love the > you give - wow
         the > you get from exercise the > you give - wow
         the > you get from a clique the > you give - sorority, gang, plotters, entrepreneur grp
         the > you get from a skill achieved or talent developed, the > you give to it

HOMANS' POINT:  I do not assume equilibrium, but I observe it:  grps tend towards =

            (= here is equilibrium, not equality!)

            MEASURE of  =:  if A-B interact w ea other more than with C the same at beg and end, the group is in =.
            i.e., if boy (or girl) shifts his attention from A to C in an encounter, it's out of whack!
            i.e., if kisses (exchanges) are constant at beg and end of an encounter, in =
                   then that starts to change .... over time and over time, the grp = shifts. 
                   Parties may begin to feel they have more or less internal vs external "rewards"
                   LOVE:   inner intense excitement may shift to outer peaceful organized "home"

COHESION = LIKING = CONFORMITY
    however, this all exists in time .... hence change .... (remember pigeons?)
    this is why = is not assumed, but observed  (not "causal" as it is for structural functionalists)

Q:  when does behavior persist?   HOMANS:  Don't assume a "horrid profit-seeking individual"

               rewards are internal - but then there is SOCIAL CONTROL

              e.g., battered woman syndrome - to her, the balance of internal and external rewards keep her there - until there is a shift .... social workers amass outside these battering relationship to awaken the woman that there are alternate reward structures.

2 experiments:  1  Gerard, et al         2  Blau

Gerard:  "The Anchorage of Opinion in Face to Face Groups"

2 group types:   Hi Att   Lo Att     (attraction - like each other)   1 Pd. Participant in each!
                       Paid participant expresses a DIVERGENT opinion!!!
                       so, get their opinion on something 1st:  product, vote
                       so who is more likely to shift and join him?   Lo Att group members!
                      

'PROOF' to HOMANS that we look for more reward, but of either sort (inner or outer)
SEE THE DYNAMIC

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE - now, this is about inequality

take industry.  take GENDER.   take CEOSs     take OBAMA and Joe the Plumber:
     ROUGH Jobs      and EASY Jobs   - ROUGH jobs should get more reward.
     Grrrrrrrr  Labor disputes, Gender traps, CEO entitlements, etc.

But then the expectation that those who get all those rewards pay back.   why?
well, we observe equilibrium

not a "should", not moral from the outside (judgment) but, rather,their own internal rewards - belonging to group, values, norms, giving back.
Many "moralities" (remember - external reward: be in a group) express:
"we are one" (the new spirituality)

"weakest link"

Hillary's "our country works best when it works for all"

Justice - balance - freedom (from guilt)

inner balance - outer harmony

LET'S HEAR IT FOR LOVE!  not as a morality but as a sustainability

Married to the soul of Gaia,
Saved by the symmetry of heaven.

How does this tie into the current economic crisis?  DEMS say govt organizes the give-back because without intervention, the evil greedy ones don't give back.  REPS say people organize the give-back because groups and economies work this way.

Blau study.  16 Fed law enforcement agents

RULE:  when don't know how to do something, supposed to ask.  Consult boss.

but consulting boss shows you're incompetent ... so consult one another.

well, some in a group are most competent - others are least competent.
So who is going to consult whom?

COMPETENCY is a scarce resource.   1 or 2 most competent would not give advice; therefore they rec'd < liking and < interaction.
interaction in the middle - CAN'T ask the top because the won't tell you and you don't like them - can't ask the bottom because they don't know

    ASK FOR HELP IN THE MIDDLE - THE MIDDLE LIKES BEING ASKED FOR ADVICE

    CAN'T GO TOO OFTEN for advice though because it will be not-liked

A DELICATE BALANCE!!!!!

SUM:  Social behavior is an exhchange of goods (material and immaterial)

those who give a lot try to get a lot

those who get a lot are under pressure to give a lot

this process of influence tends to work out to =

this generates a "group structure"

SEE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR as ECONOMY.

BLAU

People's associations through space and time:  social relations unite.  We get organized into complex structures.

So ... the structure of social associations is his focus.

social processes lead to legitimation or opposition:  remember Homans on industry? 
    if we all agree that heavy lifting (man) is more important than secretarial work (women) then we all agree.    Or, if we all agree that becoming a doctor takes a lot of work right in the time period when woman are bearing children and we accept that, then being a nurse, which takes less training and can be "fit in" is for women and valued less.

THE EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL REWARDS

My gratification is contingent on actions of others.  I not only get, but share:

  e.g., can't really enjoy eating along

  e.g., for one to exercise power, other concede

  e.g., if one gets recognition (e.g., a great writer) it's because others say so

  e.g., for me to be a good basketball player, I need a team

  e.g., for me to get the guy, other girls can't have him (usually applies more to guys than gals)

We derive pleasure from giving kindness - we get reciprocation.  Result is xchg.

                failure to reciprocate:  ingratitude.  p 256 many caveats, but ...

GRANTED THESE QUALIFICATIONS, THE ASSUMPTION THAT men seek to adjust social conditions to achieve their ends is ... inescapable.  so ... BASIC PROCESSES:

EXCHANGE processes give rise to a differentiation in power

Social attraction:  259:  Exchange processes, thus, give rise to differentialtion of power.

    components ... social attraction        free will (choice)          need

a person on whom OTHERS are dependent for vital benefits has power to enforce his demands.

DIFFERENTIATION POWER in a group evokes: contrasting, dynamic forces:  legitimacy+opposition

... then there are a bunch of Blau's words about how this creates "value consensus and comples interplay and enduring micro and macrostructures....."

RECIPROCITY AND IMBALANCE:

(in contrast to Homans !!):  individuals and groups are interested in maintaining a balance, but want a balance in their favor. !!

Boy - Girl:  262-263:   A wants to be attractive to B.  Thus, maybe A has to do more to get B, e.g., more "courting".   success means:  attraction is now mutual.

BUT LOOK AT WHAT SUSTAINS IT!  B just "is" - whereas A has to "keep up"
    thus, balances in a social association is produced by the imbalances in the same association in other respects!

imbalance of power establishes reciprocity:  e.g., Sugar Daddy.  It's a clear relationship.

-+-+-+   it may be a positive imbalance of benefits for subordinates or a negative imbalance of oppression and exploitation.

Coleman

society shapes us, but we have self-interests.

concept of social capital created to bring these two elements together.

Social Capital:  its productive and context-specific.  It inheres in the structure of relations between actors. 
examples of social capital being embedded in groups:

  1 diamond merchants - trust - family

  2 Korean student radicals activists and study groups

  3 Mother of 6 who moves out of comfort zone

  4 networks of merchants - you scratch my back - i'll scratch yours

Human capital - social capital - human is my talents & skills.  Social is my relations among people.

On what does social capital rely?

1.  trustworthiness of the social environment = obligations will be repaid; obligations held.

2.  information channels:  need to work  -  hence need to be there and to be used.  e.g., you may be nice to your local grocer on all occasions so that you can get credit from him on the rate occasion you need it

3.  Norms & effective sanctions-effective norms can constitute a powerful form of social capital

SOCIAL STRUCTURE THAT FACILITATES SOCIAL CAPITAL

Closure of social networks

Social capital in the creation of Human capital:  different families provide for humans differently

"neighborhoods"

Public Goods' aspect of Social Capital

278:  In explicating the concept of social capital, 3 forms identified

1  obligations and expectations (depend on trustworthiniess - and some fams cannot provide)

2  information flow and use (and some fams cannot provide)

3  norms and sanctions (and some fams cannot provide)

THINK:  WAR GAMES  -  PEACE GAMES      Rand CORPORATION       Etc.

Phenom:  also micro, like exchange, BUT subjective - understand world from P.O.V. of actor, not observer.

commonsense reality - not "profit" or "gain" in an exchange.

we are "world building creatures" (Berger)

Schutz common sense knowledge of the world.

I.  a system of constructs of its typicality

II.  Constructs - inter-subjective: 
a.  reciprocity because we live amongst other humans

b.  social origin of knowledge
c.  social distribution of knowledge

d.  Structure of the social world and its "typifications" by common sense constructs. 
     with some, we live in a pure We-relationship.  Except in a pure We-relationship of consociates, we can never grasp the individual uniqueness of our fellow-man

Course-of-Action Types and Personal Types.  P 291

1.  Action - project - motive

2.  Social Interaction

3.  the Observer

III. Rational Action within Common-Sense Experience

IV. Constructs of thought Objects by the Social Sciences

V.  Scientific Model Constructs of Rational Action Patterns

Berger - "Sacred Canopy"
man cannot exist apart from society - dialectical character of societal phenomena

externalization

obectivation

internalization

man must make a world for himself

Erving Goffman

• impression management:  always tied to the "situation"

• performers audience

• team audience

• back region   front region

• Definition of the Situation

• Analytic context:  4 perspectives, for each establishment is:

1.  technical (efficient or not - working or not)

2.  political (deprivations, indulgences)

3.  structural (consists of horizontal and vertical relations)

4.  cultural (symbols and norms)

Power must be clothed in effective means of displaying it.

Cultural values determine how participants feel and how they appear.

audience tends to accept the self projected by the performer.

PERFORMANCE DISRUPTIONS:  personality    interaction   structure

maintain impressions

performed character SEEMS to emanate from the person, but really from the setting (stage), set pieces, props, role, etc.  Look at the classroom.  Look at the governmental "window."
 

Nikkole Valdes 2/25/2009 Goffman Chapter Paper

Question:  what is a "self" to Goffman?
 

Michael Bouvet  March 5, 2009  Soc 414: Contemporary Sociological Theory  Dr. Maureen Tabor

Dorothy Smith in a page

 The basis of Smith's work is that the fundamental structures and predominant ideologies in America directly reflect patriarchy.  Although there has significant progression toward equality, there still exists a major schism in both the male and female perspective.  If the separation didn’t exist, then feminism wouldn’t be labeled as such, but rather be fully integrated into society and not have a separate distinction as an alternate ideology.  According to Smith, women are essentially excluded from the governing world.  She says “men have functioned as subjects in the mode of governing; women have been anchored in the local and particular phase of the bifurcated world.”  Bifurcation of consciousness is a major concept stemming from Smith’s analysis.  Bifurcation is basically two modes of knowing in which there is a distinction between the world as one experiences it, and as one has come to know it through the conceptual frameworks that exist.  Women are more aware of bifurcation because they are not fully accepted or absorbed into the conceptual framework that men utilize to view the world.  Men have a tendency to obscure bifurcation as the two modes of knowing closely mirror each other for them and become indistinct within their realm of consciousness.  However, for women, there is a very obvious separation in those modes giving them the innate ability to perceive the world in a completely different manner; thus women have a unique perception of reality. 

Smith uses the professional work setting to exemplify this concept of bifurcation of consciousness.  She says that “the more successful women are in mediating the world of concrete particulars so that men do not have to become engaged with (and therefore conscious of) that world as a condition of their abstract activities, the more complete men’s absorption in it and the more effective its authority.”  Huh? Does this mean women make good executive secretaries, particularly when their bosses need not be fully conscious of the importance of their effort?   For Smith, women’s consciousness is dominated and suppressed by its male counterpart although it is an essential basis for it. 

For example, if the private sphere of the home is considered, the female experience is highly undervalued.  Women dominate the work in the home.  However, because there is no linear distinction between the house work and the work that takes place in the professional realm from the standpoint of the dominant male framework, it isn’t perceived as work at all.  Often, when a woman agrees to solely handle the work at home, she is considered as “not working” or “unemployed” although it undoubtedly encompasses tasks that are essential to a functioning household.  Because an egalitarian relationship between men and women is yet to be realized in the workplace, women still have this unique point of view.  Thus, in order to eradicate bifurcation, a woman’s perspective needs to be considered and incorporated into the dominant framework.

 SCANTRON Questions could be about:  

1. What is bifurcation of consciousness?

2.  How does it apply to the theory of intersectionality? 

3. What role do social forces play in bifurcation?

Kris Freed  Soc 414   Professor Tabor  The implications of Dorothy Smith 

            Dorothy Smith, a female sociologist, is most known for her feminist views. From Smith’s early days of teaching in a university setting, she noticed that there was clear evidence of gender inequalities. In addition, she noted how striking it was that the intellectual and cultural world that we live in has been put together from a man’s standpoint and is therefore biased. Smith argues that woman’s direct experiences are a tremendous link that is missing from the current structure of sociology, and therefore restructuring is necessary to include women and to give their experiences a central place in future sociology. Some of the clear distinctions she referred to were sexual differences, including both physical and gender roles. In sexual differences she pointed to aggressive male behavior and women’s role of providing the logistics of a man’s bodily existence. In terms of social roles, she noted that maternal roles focused on homemaking and mother, whereas the paternal roles were to support the household and family, but outside of the basic activities of the home. She also looks at the historical differences in gender both politically and economically. Smith implies through her works that there is a clear distinction between the home (feminine role) and world (masculine role) whereby the people that create the rules and mores (men) never make the shift in consciousness (understanding women’s direct and real experiences). Economically, it’s the obvious…men make the money while women are responsible for shaping the money into domestic products. Smith does believe change can be achieved once there is a shift in consciousness, a look from a woman’s standpoint.                                                  

When men and women are equal in the marketplace I believe there will be significant change, but I do not think that gender roles will completely blend and disappear and probably shouldn’t. There has been significant progress over the past thirty years, but expectations from males and females are different from society to society. Although social expectations are definitely fluid, there are clear differences that will always provide some form of separation.  I believe that the increased educational opportunities and, with that, an increase in the number of women in all of the professions, along with the swift development of gender-neutral technologies, all converge in creating new roles and expectations for men and women. One gender does not change while the other remains the same: women will always bear the children and for some reason men will always express aggressiveness as an essential aspect of male character. And although gender equality would make the world a better place, complete blending or disappearance of roles is not likely, not in my lifetime anyway.

Evelyn Espinoza   Soc 414    Dr. Maureen Tabor  Dorothy Smith and the Bifurcation of Consensus

Dorothy Smith argues the discipline of sociology should develop theories from the standpoint of women.   Standpoint theorists can examine a situation in a social setting from the experiences of women. Dorothy Smith regards the “bifurcation of consensus” or separation of an agreement as a contradiction in the world of sociology for women. “Men have functioned as subjects in the mode of the governing; women have anchored in the local and particular phase of the bifurcated world” (p: 368). Since the discipline of sociology was historically created by men it is not really capable of explaining the role of women. 

Smith argues it would be impossible for males to explain the role of women because their work can strictly be observational. In yet one more example Smith writes, “...a traditional gender division of labor prevails, men enter the conceptually organized role of governing without a sense of transition” (p: 367).  She goes on to say that the social settings that surround male sociologist are construed to fit that of a male dominated society and that it would be impossible for them to know the true experience of women. 

Dorothy Smith sociology is never truly independent or free of objection.  It would be more justified if sociologist could recognize the relationship they have to the knowledge they seek to discover. Social science should pay more attention to the daily experiences of people, including those of women who are in subordinate positions in society.  We should recognize our own surroundings before we seek to explain others, but the trick is that in order to recognize our own surroundings, we have to recognize the surroundings of others!

Patricia Hill Collins:  p. 383:  Feminism didn't mix well with the black woman or with third world women.  How wondrous and fearful it must be to step out into that space of possibilikty where you define yourself on your own terms, to craft a new multiethnic, gender-gending, biracial, sexually dynamic, fluid personal identity that is seen and respected by all sorts of people who seem so different from oneself.  The responsibly and potential freedom that this promises are boundless.

We are "too bold for boundaries."

REMAINDER
OF TERM  
 

FEB 19:  Scantron, questions for AB CD, and a film

Feb 26 A + B  
Mar  5 C +  D

Mar 12 Wrap up and Review

Mar 19 Final Scantron, cumulative, on Final Night

Week 6  February 12

Week 5

Second Life   technology-assisted education !! creating a virtual world:  education
participate!  want to!   awakens the "treasure-hunter in all of us"

in their own way, sociologists create a virtual world of sociology.  It's a mental virtual world, and sometimes you have to struggle to get into it.   It's a way to see    can it be a way to be?

if groups are always ÷ in two and have superordinates group and subordinates group  ... well ... do we have to settle on that division?

? ?  Isn't that the masculine way to see and not the feminine  ? ?

is there a way more beautifully to blend?

patterns:  simmel size conflict stranger

Zimmerman and West:  doing gender & exercise

ROMANTICISM

emotion about logic and reason
"left" and "right" - what is?

Historic - so who knows?

Mead play game and me I - segue into S.I.

FREE WILL - CHOICE - DETERMINISM

"DIRECTION" (from w/in or from w/out)
DEMS (cases) AND REPS (rules - systems)

Week 4   Agenda

1. Consensus theorists:  Finish Merton 

2. little groups exercise:  latent functions (3)

3. Conflict theorists:  Dahrendorf neo - conflict theorists

   • Mills

   • Zweignehaft & Domhoff

   • Hochschild

   • Marcuse

   • Habermas

4. Pattern - Simmel (size, conflict, money).  West and Zimmerman "doing gender"