10
Contemporary Sociological Theory (SC407-W)
[Thematic Node: Problems of Late-Modernity and their Moral Geometries]
Minnesota State University, Moorhead: Spring Semester 2015
(A Contract-Based Writing Intensive Theory Course)
Thought Leader: Dr. Lee Garth Vigilant
On the Late-Modern Condition:
“The construction of a scientific object requires first and foremost a break with common sense, that is, with the representations shared by all, whether they be the mere commonplaces of ordinary existence or official representations, often inscribed in institutions and thus present both in the objectivity of social organizations and in the minds of their participants. The preconstructed is everywhere. The sociologist is literally beleaguered by it, as everybody else is. The sociologist is thus saddled with the task of knowing the object –the social world- of which he is the product, in a way such that the problems that he raises about it and the concepts he uses have every chance of being the product of this object itself.” –Pierre Bourdieu and Loic J. D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago.
“Social reproduction is thus asymmetrical. Women in their domestic role reproduce men and children physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Women in their domestic role as housekeeper reconstitute themselves physically on a daily basis and reproduce themselves as mothers, emotionally and psychologically, in the next generation. They thus contribute to the perpetuation of their own social roles and positions in the hierarchy of gender…Because women are themselves mothered by women, and grow up with the relational capacities and needs, and psychological definition of self-in-relationship, which commits them to mothering. Men, because they are mothered by women, do not. Women mother daughters who, when they become women, mother.” –Nancy Chodorow, Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley.
“Terrorism in all its forms is the transpolitical mirror of evil. For the real problem, the only problem, is: where did Evil go? And the answer is: everywhere –because the anamorphosis [distorted projection] of modern forms of Evil knows no bounds. In a society which seeks –by prophylactic measures, by annihilating its own natural referents, by whitewashing violence, by exterminating all germs and all of the accursed share, by performing cosmetic surgery on the negative- to concern itself solely with quantified management and with the discourse of the Good, in a society where it is no longer possible to speak Evil, Evil has metamorphosed into all the viral and terroristic forms that obsess us.” Jean Baudrillard’s “Whatever Happened to Evil?” From The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomena. Verso.
“Globalisation can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. This is a dialectical process because such local happenings may move in an obverse direction from the distanciated relations that shape them. Local transformation is as much a part of globalisation as the lateral extension of social connections across time and space.” –Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford.
“Overcoming essentialism, and allowing for variations both between and within units for comparisons, compares that which otherwise, without variation, remains essential, constant, and necessary in all possible worlds. We can now build a coherent and explanatory theory of variations between and within cultures. What is more, we can do so with the same sociological variables and do not need theories of each distinct area of culture. This is a sign of a strong theory: it decomposes natural kinds and essences, rearranging the parts on higher levels of generality with broader explanatory range. Strong theories economize on explanation costs. All this becomes possible once variation is allowed for, essentialism is overcome, and the right frames of comparison are found.”–Stephen Fuchs, Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society. Harvard.
“We must cease at once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms; it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production.” –Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punishment. Pantheon.
Required Texts:
Charles Lemert. 2013. Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings, 5th Edition. Westview.
Donald Black. 2011. Moral Time. Oxford University Press.
Elizabeth Pisani. 2008. The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS. W.W. Norton & Company.
Required Articles:
Gabriel A. Acevedo. 2005. “Turning Anomie on its Head: Fatalism as Durkheim’s Concealed and
Multidimensional Alienation Theory.” Sociological Theory, Vol., 23, No. 1 (March): 75-85).
Donald Black. 2004. “The Geometry of Terrorism.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1 (March): 14-25).
Neil Gross. 2005. “The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 3
(September): 286-311).
Douglas Hartman and Joseph Gerteis. 2005. “Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multiculturalism in
Sociological Terms.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 2 (June): 218-240).
Joseph H. Michalski. 2003. “Financial Altruism or Unilateral Resource Exchanges? Toward a Pure Sociology of
Welfare.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 21, No. 4 (December): 341-358.
Rekha, Mirchandani. 2005. “Postmodernism and Sociology: From the Epistemological to the Empirical.”
Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1: 86-115.
George Ritzer. 2003. “Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing.”
Sociological Theory, Vol. 21, No. 3 (September): 193- 209.
Christian Smith. 2009. Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. Six Major Religious
Types (Chapter 6). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vigilant, Lee G., Trefethren, Lauren W., and Anderson, Tyler C. 2013. “You Can’t Rely on Somebody Else to Teach Them
Something They Don’t Believe”: Impressions of Legitimation Crisis and Socialization Control in Narratives of Homeschooling Fathers. Humanity and Society, Vol. 37: 202-224.
Kenji Yoshino. 2000. “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure.” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Jan):
353.
Recommended Texts:
Stephen Fuchs. 2001. Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society. Harvard.
Margaret S. Archer and Jonathan Q. Tritter. 2000. Rational Choice Theory: Resisting Colonization. Routledge.
Jean Baudrillard. 2002. The Perfect Crime. Verso.
Jean Baudrillard. 1998. Paroxysm: Interviews with Philippe Petit. Verso.
Jean Baudrillard. 1996. Cool Memories II. Verso.
Jean Baudrillard. 1990. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso.
Patrick Baert. 1998. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century. NYU.
Pierre Bourdieu. 2001. Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market 2. The New Press.
Pierre Bourdieu. 1998. Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market. The New Press.
Pierre Bourdieu, et al. 1993. The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society. Stanford.
Pierre Bourdieu. 1990. In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford.
Rosi Braidotti. 1994. Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory.
Columbia.
Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago.
Michel Foucault. 1986. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 3: The Care of the Self. Vantage.
Anthony Giddens. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford.
Jurgen Habermas. 1995. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. MIT Press.
James B. Rule. 1997. Theory and Progress i Social Sciences. Cambridge.
Steven Seidman. 2004. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Blackwell.
Seminar Description:
This advanced seminar concerns late-modernity through the spectre of sociological theories on power, knowledge, networks, and reflexivity. We consider how (w)riters of society have interpreted the last fin-de-siecle and beyond through readings, lectures, and discourse. A central theme of this course is the way sociology has moved away from the Grand Theorizing that marked 19th/early 20th Century attempts to (w)rite society. We consider theories on major dilemmas of the late-modern condition, and reflect on how the (his)torical dualisms of object/subject, rational/emotional, positive/reflexive, and agency/structure have confounded attempts at understanding society in times past. Along the way, we consider who exactly is empowered to theorize society, and who is silenced. A concomitant concern is the scope conditions that constrain competing theoretical paradigms (rational choice, structuration, symbolic interactionism, structural functionalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, sex/gendered epistemologies, critical theory, network theory, critical race theory, and the like). Finally, through articles from the journal Sociological Theory and other scholarly supplements, we examine how contemporary theory informs understanding of identity, intimacy, anomie (both personal and social), terrorism, multiculturalism, legitimation crises, and globalization: the ‘problems’ of late-modernity.
Seminar Structure:
During a typical class period, I will present a lecture on the theory under study. These lectures will include an intellectual biography of the theorist(s), the initial problem that sparked her/his sociological imagination, the central propositions of their conjectural statements, their theoretical scope conditions, and finally, the current limitations with the framework and what needs to be “carried forward”. I will lecture for ½ to ¾ of the week’s allotted period, and leave the remaining time to our discussant leader(s) for the week. Of course, please feel free to stop me at any time with your questions, comments, and criticisms: This is a seminar. I will endeavor to distribute weekly handouts on my lectures that will cover the central positions of the theory under study.
Dragon Core Competencies (Writing Intensive Course Designation)
Contemporary Sociological Theory (SC407) carries a writing intensive course designation (“W”), and addresses all six (6) written communication competencies of the Dragon Core Curriculum. The Dragon Core writing competencies (modified and paraphrased for our purposes) that are extended in Contemporary Sociological Theory (SC407) are as follows:
(1) SC407 employs a “coherent writing process” that includes the opportunity to submit early drafts for editing.
(2) SC407 encourages you to consult with the professor (or the Write Site) to “produce quality written products.”
(3) SC407 requires the synthesis of scholarly readings in your Analytic Reaction Papers (ARPs).
(4) SC407 calls for the use proper citation of sources (American Sociological Style) in your ARPs and term paper. You will cite both text and electronic materials.
(5) SC407 requires that you make logical and cogent arguments when writing ARPs. (See instruction on grading procedure.)
(6) SC407 requires the use of correct grammar and spelling in all written products.
This advanced seminar requires close and careful reading and writing. Students with disabilities who need an accommodation in this class are encouraged to contact Greg Toutges, Director of Disability Services at 477-4318 (voice) or 1-800-627-3529 (MRS/TTY), Flora Frick 154 at your earliest convenience so that accommodations are implemented in a timely fashion. Find information on Disability Services at web.mnstate.edu/disability. I am pleased to make these arrangements on your behalf.
Contract Grading Procedure
Contractual Obligations for Grade A
· Consistent class attendance (no more than 3 absences) & informed participation as discussant leader (at least on two (2) occasions): Each participant will also serve as a thought & question leader during our discussion period. I will assign readings to various participants on a weekly basis, and you will be responsible for raising critical questions or points of discussion for the group. The easiest way to accomplish this task is to bring a written question, or quotation, or personal comment(s) from the readings to share with the group during the discussion period. These are informal writing opportunities for discussant leaders to share thoughts and initial reactions on the readings with the group as well as to guide in-class discussions. These comments and questions (about a paragraph in length) will constitute part of your attendance and participation grade, so be certain to hand them to me after your presentations. Missing more than three (3) classes will automatically result in a lower course grade. I take class attendance very seriously and I expect your presence whenever the course is in session. This attendance-based grade reduction is consistent with the Student Handbook’s Student Absence Policy: “(b) not penalize the student for nonattendance unless the student is absent without official excuse for more class periods during the term than the number of periods the class meets each week (or more than two class periods during a summer session).” After your third (3rd) absence, I deduct a grade level +/- from your grade (excessive absences [six or more] will result in further reductions). I will, however, accept a doctor’s note for serious debilitating illness and accept absences for required military service. I will not consider any other excuses for nonattendance: PLEASE DO NOT ASK!
· Three (3) short essays (minimum of 4-5 pages each) on particular sets of readings. These essays are analytic reaction papers (ARPs) that summarize the essential ideas of the theoretical pieces and critique the scope conditions of the paradigm under study. These writing projects will also apply the theory to a social problem of late-modernity. I may ask you to read these meditations to the group, so be precise in editing grammatical errors. Remember, students enrolled for credit can submit rough-drafts of all assignments to me (at least a week before the due date) to ensure a polished product, and as always, I encouraged you to use the Write-Site for assistance with your writing. These ARPs come due on the week the topic is dicussed (see memo on grading procedures on page 5). As this is a writing intensive and a contract-graded course, all submitted essays must be written on a level that is commensurate with your contract; if it is not “on the level,” I will return it to you with instructions to correct the grammatical, spelling, and/or syntax errors, and to resubmit. I will collect ARPs on the first day of a new topic. You have a choice of any three (3) sections. Due Date: Ideally, I would like to collect these papers on the first day the topic is duscussed, which is usally on Monday.
· Reaction Essay to Elizabeth Pisani’s The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS (5 pages in length). (Due Date: Monday, 3rd March, 2015)
· Outline (5-7 pages) of Donald Black’s Moral Time. (Due 2nd February 2015: 5-7 pgs.)
● An intellectual biography of a major contemporary social theorist. You will write an intellectual biography (10-15 pages) of a major 20th/21st Century social theorist. (1) You will summarize her/his theoretical contributions to the problems of modernity. (What is the ‘dilemma’ for this theorist?) (2) You will consider her/his influences (classical and/or contemporary), and how her/his theory embodies cumulative knowledge or the attempt to “carry forward” the ideas of someone else. (3) You will interrogate the scope conditions (or limitations) with her/his explanations. Finally, and by way of epistemic reflexivity, (4) you will share your thoughts on why you are drawn to the writings of this theorist, and whether you believe there are questions that you might carry forward in your own theorizing. Your citation and bibliography will conform to American Sociological Association (ASA) style. You will make a brief (15 minutes) presentation to the class on your findings. (Intellectual Biographies due on Friday 8th May 2015 at 12:00pm)