Transcript Review and Prospect - Villanova University

Other Strands of Sociological
Theory (2/24)
1.
2.
3.
Chicago sociology
Liberalism, Positivism, NeoKantianism,
Positivism in Europe and America.
When and how did the 3 classic figures
of sociology become classics?
Editors, evaluators feedback
I
will give you back your papers on
Wednesday
 With written comments
 Which you will hate.
 It is a dirty job, but someone had to do
it, because the “term paper” that you
know how to write will not teach you
much.
We have argued that:
 The
classic figures are Marx, Durkheim,
and Weber
 Who stressed class, norms and
organization, respectively
 Conflict theories focus on positive
feedbacks,
 and functional theories on negative
feedbacks.
Prior to the 1960’s many other
figures would have been
considered more important.
 Parsons
from 1940-1970 made
Durkheim and Weber central figures.
 The critics of Parsons from 1960-1990
made Marx important.
 In Chicago sociology, figures such as
Spencer, Comte, or Simmel were
considered more important.
Chicago sociology
 We
have seen that in influential set of
theorists and researchers at the
University of Chicago founded American
sociology in the late 19th c.
 They stressed the explanation of
different rates of behaviors such as
crime or illegitimacy in different
neighborhoods.
The Chicago School

The sociologists at the University of Chicago
established a very rich tradition of empirical
description of slums, ethnic and racial groups,
gangs, etc.
 Robert Park promoted empirical studies:
sociologist as (wo)man with clipboard.
 Most of them studied in Germany.
 Their principal theoretical orientation derived
from Simmel, who, like Weber, stressed
interpretive understanding and the
meaningful basis of human action.
Symbolic interaction

The central theoretical framework used by
Chicago theorists was formulated in the 20th
c. as symbolic interaction:
 All human behavior is meaningful.
 Human meanings (definitions of the situation)
are developed in interaction in groups.
 Thus to understand human behavior the
groups and meanings have to be observed.
Four (eight) other bodies of
theory flowing into sociology:

1.
2.
3.
4.
In Europe and in the United States, four
other bodies of theory remained dominant
through the 1920’s:
19th century liberalism (capitalist
individualism)
Positivism (the attempt to apply the
methods of natural science)
NeoKantianism (symbolic interaction)
Historicism (theories of histo0rical
development.)
Empirical Strengths of Symbolic
Interaction
 The
interpretive understanding of the
behavior in slums and rich suburbs, among
gangs and ethnic communities gave
sociologists a way of collecting an
enormous quantity of data.
 Conceptions of groups and neighborhoods,
in competition and interaction with each
other, focused on basic themes of norms
and conflict.
The theory of Symbolic
Interaction

1.
2.
3.
The Chicago theorists viewed:
Human action as based on
meaningful definitions of the situation.
Definitions of the situation as based on
group interactions
And groups as internally solidary and
in competition with each other.
Positive Feedbacks in Symbolic
Interaction
 We
have suggested that many of the
theoretical standpoints in sociology can
be understood as feedback systems.
 And important feedback system was
differential association, which amplifies
almost any human characteristic
Who you know
e.g. churchgoers
+
What you do
+
e.g. go to church
Negative Feedbacks in Symbolic
Interaction
 At
the same time, the social groups and
systems of meaning could be analyzed
functionally, as systems of roles
 In which behavior is functional and the
role is replaced
Failure to perform
the role e.g. not
going to church
+
-
Sanctions or replacement:
pressure to
go to
church
Much of Chicago sociology
was directed against Spencer
Spencer was “Mr. Sociology” from the 1840’s
to the 1930’s
 His “Social Darwinism” argued that progress
was driven by competition and the “survival of
the fittest.”
 Spencer wrote the first books in English on
sociology, arguing for “laissez faire” and the
importance of genetic differences.
 Against Spencer, Chicago sociologists saw
human behavior as socially shaped.

Liberalism and Social
Darwinism
19th c. Liberals were not “liberal” but
“conservative”
 They stressed competition and genetic
variation,
 and so they opposed labor laws, income tax,
and social policy generally.
 In the US, Spencer was very popular with the
robber barons that controlled American
education, and William Graham Sumner was
an exponent
 Charles Murray is a contemporary example

Liberalism and Individualism
1.
2.



Europe: Spencer
US: Sumner
Popular explanations of crime, income, educational
success, addiction, etc. often stress individual
traits.
One can always ask why this individual rather than
that one develops cancer, fails school or abuses
drugs.
But such explanations may be useless in explaining
rates and structures relevant to health, education or
drug abuse.
Positivism
1.
2.




Europe: Saint-Simon & Comte
US Ward
Saint-Simon and Comte developed a
project of a “social physics.”
Saint-Simon was also one of the
founders of socialism.
Their work does not look very scientific
today.
In the US, Ward was a main exponent.
NeoKanianism
1.
2.



Europe Simmel
US: Mead and Thomas
Kant’s argued that our conceptualizations
make our knowledge possible.
And figures such as Mead or W.I.Thomas
insisted that the ways that people think about
reality is real in its consequences. (I.e. belief
in witchcraft creates witches.)
This became one source of symbolic
interactionism
Historicism
1.
2.



Europe Toennies
US: Park and Small
Other European theorists developed historical
description and conceptualization of social change.
Toennies Community and Society was an elaborate
conceptualization of different kinds of social
structures.
Ch. 5 of One World noted that there were many
analyses of social development that were the basis
of modern sociology.
The Rise and Fall of Chicago

The distinctive development of sociology in
the US led to a more rapid development of
empirical research,
 Which accumulated until there was an
intense need for theoretical consolidation,
 Leading to the domination of anti-Chicago
theorists, such as Parsons and Mills, in the
mid-20th century
Rise
 For
more than a generation, sociologists
trained at the University of Chicago
dominated the bulk of other
Departments in the US
 They conducted empirical research
 which was often descriptively rich,
 but theoretically weak.
Fall

Many other universities were marginalized as
was the work of many important sociolgists
not trained at Chicago
 For example DuBois’ The Philadelphia Negro
(1895) pioneered all of the methods of
community studies and the ideas of Myrdal,
 But he was never given recognition in
sociology.
 The resentment of Chicago led to the rise of
functionalism and the adoption of the
American Sociological Review in the 1940’s
Chicago Sociology Today
 William
Julius Wilson
 Concept
of the underclass and the Truly
disadvantaged
 The culture of poverty driven by job flight
 Elijah Anderson
 Concept
of “street” vs. “decency”
 Problems of interpretive analysis.
Elijah Anderson:
Vice president of ASA 2002
Streetwise: Race, Class and Change in an
Urban Community (1990)
Code of the Streets: Decency, Violence and
Moral Life in the Inner City (1999).
Topic of symposium American Journal of
Sociology May 2002
(Entry to the methodological and substantive findings of urban
ethnography as possible paper topics)
Groups and Norms along
Germantown
Ave.
 The head of Germantown Ave. (Chestnut Hill) is
very upper class; and the foot is very lower class.
 *pp. 366-7 shows the same structure of Lancaster
Ave. from ghetto poverty to the “main line.”
 The head is characterized by a norm of civic
politeness; the foot by “rep” or “juice.”
 The head is white; the foot is black.
 Is this an example of institutional racism?
Structures that make the code of
the streets crazy in Chestnut Hill

Some Chestnut Hill residents see most
blacks from down town as very “rude.”
 Where does that behavior come from?
 Anderson argues that down town, showing
that you are “bad” and that anyone who
“messes with you” is “asking for trouble” is
adaptive.
 If you behave that way in Chestnut Hill,
people will look at you as though you are
crazy, and you may be arrested.
 Anderson argues it is like a language, a
Situations and structures making
resisting the code of the streets
hard at the foot of Germantown
Ave.
 Similarly,
if you behave, downtown, in a
way that would work and would be
appropriate in Chestnut Hill, people will
look at you as though you are a turkey,
and take advantage of you.
 But in Chestnut Hill being “nicey-nicey”
signals status, class, kindness and
character.
e.g. #1 The Story of Robert:
Small business and Old Heads
 “When
I was dealing, I was treated as a
king, and no one messed with me.”
 “When I follow the rules, I am in a dead
end, everyone steals from me and every
petty bureaucrat dumps on me.”
 The view of the “old heads” in Mantua is
that they are suckers and pathetic Toms.
 Why?
“Old
Heads”
 In Streetwise Anderson argued that the social
disorganization of Mantua stemmed from the loss
of status of the “old heads.”
 i.e. those people who had played by the rules and
who had been able to get good jobs in the period
1969-1973,
 were the “last hired” (in 1969-73); and so they
were “first fired” (in 1972-81).
 Anderson argues that this was not just tough luck
for them, but a catastrophe for the community
and a disaster for the society.
 Similar debates concern whether street venders
are a crucial role model and escape hatch for
urban youth.
Why Does the city discourage
venders?

In the overall structure of power and influence,
people like Robert are at the bottom.
 The city department that issues and enforces
vendor licenses is mainly responsive to
storeowners that regard Robert as a nuisance.
 What are the main priorities of the police?
 Anderson suggests that no one with any power or
influences is particularly interested in having
Robert succeed; but his success is key to who
wins the battle between the “street” and “decency”
Example #2: the story of Tyree
 Tyree’s
Grandmother - “decent folk.”
 The ‘bols’
 Tyree’s situation.
 Tyree’s solution.
 The Outcome of Tyree’s solution: He is
now in a gang, fighting in the street; and
hanging around with the worst people.
Why doesn’t he “Just Say No”

The structure does not insure that every
person joins a gang; certainly not with
commitment, but



“Not an option?” Well, not quite. But there is
a special role for those who have no group.


It insures that enough do so that the structure is
reproduced.
Those not in a gang, get it from all sides.
They are losers; they are bullied; they are
cowards; they are turkeys.
The structure of alternatives means that the
constrained choices reproduce the structure.