This is an introductory survey course. We will move rather quickly with the reading these first few weeks, covering two chapters each week. The quizzes will cover all of the material for the week. The first quiz for example covers Chapters 1 and 2 of Stark. I want them completed if at all possible by Sunday of the week they are assigned.
The first exam will be in the the fourth week of the class, the second in the eighth week, the third in the twelfth week. The fourth and last exam will be at the end of the 16th week, the last week of classes. Each exam will cover only the material up through the week of the examination, including the last examination.
In the latter part of the semester our pace will slow down, we will cover only about 1 chapter a week. This will give you an opportunity to catch your breath and deal with other classes that will be pouring the work on.
Please be sure you participate in all of the discussions since they will be an important part of your grade. I will periodically Email to each of you reminders of the work that needs to be completed and will be sending out a mid-term summary.
Now, on to the course material.
Before going any further with this outline, take a few moments and write down what you think sociology is about -- what does the term mean to you? What kinds of things come to mind when you hear "sociology?" Share your ideas with the other students by placing your responses in the threaded discussion "What is Sociology?" You will find my initial question in the group under that topic. You can read the question from your Web browser and if forms are supported, you may add your comments directly to the discussion.
You should read carefully the introduction Stark (or the first chapter of optional Berger text) to answer this first question. Basically we in sociology are interested in people, but people as they relate to groups, and social structures. As you will discover over the course of the semester, those acts that we take to be purely individualistic have a social basis, even that most individual part of us -- the self -- is indeed social and socially derived.
Human behavior is patterned, repetitive. We can predict with reasonable reliability what each of us will do generally under given conditions -- this because our behavior is patterned and repetitive. Further, not only is behavior patterned, it takes place in the context of social structures. These structures establish for us what our behavior is to be in certain contexts. For example, if you come to my classroom you will find that I (and the students) will be acting in ways that are dictated by that context. Note also that the behavior, though dictated by the context, is still free to vary within certain limits. I am expected to lecture, but may at any time be using questions to elicit ideas, thought from students about the topic at hand. The students will usually be listening and taking notes, but they may also actively engage me in conversation or discussion during the hour.
You will find these topics well discussed in Berger and in Stark, I will not expand on them here. You might want to write out your understanding of the differences among the social science disciplines.
Perspectives on human behavior related to Sociology:
As with the preceding topic, you will find this well spelled out in Stark. Therefore I will not expand on this topic at this time. If you find Stark's presentation unclear, be sure to ask me through Email or to share your concerns with other students.
Here I would stress again the point made earlier -- sociologists focus on the group and how the group and social structures affect our behavior. More than the individual is our concern. We are also interested in social structures, that is those things in society that affect us but appear not to be tangible, something that we can reach out and touch. For example, every society has some kind of system of inequality, a stratification system that establishes what groups of individuals have access to what kinds of resources. The resources will be the kind and extent of education, occupation, place of residence, how and where we spend leisure time (if we have any) and so on. In this context groups have boundaries, ways of identifying who is in and who is not; those who are members are more alike than those who are not.
Groups are distinguished from aggregates by this fact of membership, and of shared behavior as a result. Aggregates on the other hand are collections of people who share some common characteristic, for example, all blondes, redheads or dark-skinned peoples. Aggregates always have the potential for becoming groups when people use these characteristics to identify people and how they behave. Thus skin color can become an identifier for groups (Blacks in the United States). Skin color becomes the badge of membership, and individuals will be treated accordingly. Keep in mind that you will often meet people who will violate your concept of members of that group (this will be true of any group).
Human groups and interactions may be classified according to two general patterns: primary and secondary. The broad types of groups that are characterized as primary or secondary mean that the principal interactions within the group are of one type or the other. As you read the discussion you will note that in your own experience you have found groups that at some places have the qualities of a secondary interaction, at others of primary interactions.
Primary relationships are particularistic, the individual is an end in her / his own right. Each of us is an individual with unique characteristics, primary relationships are based upon those characteristics. An exchange that is considered primary usually is based upon unique and very personal knowledge of the other person. Your relationship with your parents, with a brother or sister, a spouse or significant other is of this type. The relationships are often face-to-face, but need not be. The defining characteristic is that the interaction between the two people is valuable in itself.
in effect are the opposite of above,That is such relationships are universalistic (the same set of expectations apply to everyone, the same rules, every one is treated the same). As students in the university, you are treated according to secondary rules, some of those rules are spelled out in the syllabus, others in the student handbook, codes of conduct and so on. Secondary relationships also see people as a means to an end (that is, as a way of achieving some goal or objective.) Consider for a moment how this is so. What is your relationship with me? That is, why do you interact with me? Is it because you know me? Or is it because you expect to get something from the interaction (a grade perhaps)? The latter is a secondary interaction, the interaction is a means to an end -- you may consider what is in it for the instructor that makes it work?
The internet is an active world where people regularly exchange ideas and points of view. Some of these exchanges seem to be quite personal. Read a news group and then comment on the meaning of the relationships that you see in these on-line exchanges.
Sociology is a young, developing discipline. Some consider sociological understanding to be a non-science, to have no general body of knowledge that is applied to the worlds in which we live. To some extent this is indeed true of sociology.
More importantly the discipline has developed very good methods and techniques of measurement that are applied in a range of fields: political polling was originally developed by sociologists at Columbia University in the 30s and 40s by Paul Lazarsfeld and his colleagues. Contemporary market research is an outgrowth and application of the tools of sociology. Targeted marketing developed from community and demographic studies of the distribution of people by education, class, occupation and so on. Whatever else you may think of busing, the basis for the practice derived from an extensive study of public schools in America in the 1960s by James Coleman.
In addition to having developed a strong methodological tradition, sociology has developed theoretical traditions as well. These perspectives are discussed in Topic 2: Theory and Research: Approaches in Sociology. Although strong theoretical perspectives are emerging within the discipline there are competing paradigms or schools of thought that explain different levels of human behavior.
certain rules apply to the 'scientific method' where-ever it is used. We will briefly explore the basics of these rule here.
what we take to be the facts of science are empirical -- that is based in the real world. These facts are observable, we can see them or see their effects. They are not something we 'think' to be true, we have observed them and can tell some one else how to observe them, they can see them for themselves or they can see the effects. For example, in physics and chemistry we describe atoms, electrons and so on. Although these particles are not directly observable we can see their effects in a cloud chamber. Students exist in a similar fashion, each of you is a student -- how do we know this, by observation. You regularly attend class (or in this case, work at the computer) read a text, take examinations at scheduled times and so on.
Describe briefly some things that you could use to identify a student and distinguish that kind of activity from some other kind of human activity -- say that of daughter, a father, a police officer.
The scientific method is based upon observation, the observable. If the thing is not observable or its effects are not observable, then it is not a part of science.
A theory is about relationships among the things that we observe. Facts by themselves are not useful to us, they are simply that, facts, pieces of information that describe something or tells us what something is. Until we build relationships among our facts, we cannot do much with them except describe things. Take our example of the student above, these characteristics that distinguish a student are simply facts, they describe the role or status of student. Another position or role to be considered is that of instructor: we can describe it as we did student. Alone these facts do not mean much, if we place them in relationship to one another, we begin to build a theory. We might note that there are differences in 'power' between students and instructor -- how do we know this? What is the context of the power relationship? These are the questions we would ask to help show relationships that we can use to build our theory of student / teacher behavior.
As we build this and other relationships together into a coherent structure to explain behavior of people in these positions we begin to build a 'theory'.
You should try to describe a classroom or a family in terms of power relationships.
The 'theory' of class room behavior is just that, a theory. The theory is abstract, states relationships. For it to be a theory in the scientific sense, it must be demonstrated or shown to hold. To demonstrate our theory we must carefully define our variables, the relationships among them and then state how these will occur in what kinds of circumstances. Then we have to observe some kind of behavior or outcome that will show our theory to hold, something we can predict or explain. Instructors have power in the classrooms, students are relatively powerless. To show this we must devise some situation where such power is demonstrated.
How will YOU do this? You described behavior in a theoretical sense above, how could you test your theory? Remember that you have to have behavior that is observable, you have to actually see it happen or tell that it happened. You must also be able to measure in some way what you are observing.
Science demands that our theories be tested by observation, that the relationships we expect must hold in the real world. It is possible to develop abstract relationships, that are logically consistent but do not conform to any kind of reality. Mathematics is replete with such formal, logical schemes. For example there are three 'kinds' of geometry -- Euclidian, Lobachevskian, and Ramoneian. Euclidian geometry is the one with which we are most familiar, a key proposition says that two lines perpendicular to a base line are parallel to one another, that is they will neither get closer together nor further apart, no matter how far you extend them. One of the two other mathematicians asked what would the geometry look like if indeed the lines converged (came together), the other asked what if they diverged (got further apart). By changing these propositions, they created two 'new' kinds of formal geometry, the rest of the propositions remain logically consistent, can be shown to hold true in the formal, logical structure, even though this one has been changed and seems impossible. At the time this was done there was no demonstration that they held in the real world but the geometries were logically consistent, that is using the theorems and assumptions made, every thing in the geometry remained consistent and capable of derivation (proof in the formal, mathematical sense). Similarly, a mathematician by the name of Boole developed an algebra based on two numbers -- zero and one. Again perfectly logical, and consistent but not apparently related to anything in the real world. These are all abstract, logical, deductive structures, something that we want our theories to show. When first introduced they did not apply to reality, they were merely formal statements of relationships. We remember these formal statements because they have since been shown to apply to the real world -- how?? Through test and observation.
Theory to be usable in the scientific sense must apply to the 'real world.' This means that it must be tested, there must be outcomes based upon it observed in this real world.
In our experience there are what I call two kinds of 'truth.' 'TRUTH' is absolute, unchanging and always 'true.' We will encounter this kind of truth when we examine cultures and again in our discussion of religious institutions. Scientific observation is not of this type. The statements of science must be of a form that we can test, this means that there must be the chance to show that the statements are false, that they do not hold. Our observation and testing of theory is always of this type, we are looking for ways to show that what our theories state is false. In this sense, the statements of science are not absolute and forever true. 'Truth' in the scientific sense is something that we have failed to show is false, but could at any time be shown to be false. The propositions of science are NEVER 'proven' in the sense that a proposition in geometry is 'proven.' The propositions of geometry are logical abstractions, are absolutes in the system of geometry with which we are working. We can indeed demonstrate under given conditions that our assumption about parallel lines in Euclidean geometry is false, when applied to some kinds of real world situations, Euclidean geometry is false. Yet, in the absolute sense the proposition is TRUE, that is, in the formal logical structure of the geometry the relationships are always and forever true.
Our belief systems tend to be of the type of absolute TRUTH. These are logical statements about what we believe to be the case. These are absolutes. In the Judeo-Christian belief system, the world was created in seven days. In other belief systems the creation occurred in other ways, in a different time frame (coyote may have been the active agent in the creation of the world, for example). For these peoples, those who believe, these are absolutes, there is no deviation from this TRUTH. In science we believe the universe to have been created over a much longer period of time, we have some evidence to suggest that this is the case. However, this is not taken to be TRUE. As more evidence becomes available, the scientific truth is modified, corrected. It is not absolute. Note the Greek notion of planetary motion relative to the sun, then note what Ptolemy did to this idea, then Newton, Galileo and finally Einstein. Where is the absolute in these scientific truths (statements)?
Science presumes to be free of values, what we observe is real, it is objective. Our propositions are not supposed to reflect what we believe, they are about what is. The method that we employ will help us to achieve that kind of science.
However, we are human beings, we belong to a particular culture, in a particular country at a particular period in time. We speak a particular language. All of these things work against complete objectivity. For example, students ask how can a Christian believe in evolution, aren't science and religion opposites? I am a Christian, I believe in God and much of the teachings of the Christian religion, yet I am also a scientist and one who began as a biologist and worked with evolutionary thought. Both Galileo and Newton was a devout Catholic, yet their works were condemned by the Church. In this case Newton is said to have reasoned that if a Creator did indeed exist, then the Creator would create a regular universe, if the Creator had created a regular universe, then the laws of that universe should be discoverable. In this case the mechanics, the laws of physics that Newton is said to have 'discovered' came from a particular set of values. He also was working at a time when such things were to be demonstrated to be true, he did so by making observations of planetary movements and making predictions based upon the calculus that he developed. In both instances we have sets of beliefs that influence the way 'scientists' look at the world, these are values.
So, is science value free? Yes and no. Yes in that the method is set up to keep out personal opinion and bias, no in that the kinds of questions and things we choose to study are based upon personal opinion and bias. Why did I become a sociologist? Why do I prefer to study population processes? Why do some sociologists study and write about power? Why study inequality, social stratification? Why study the family? Why indeed? Because these are important topics for the people who have chosen them, and also because each of us believes that what we find in these studies will help us to understand human behavior and maybe even to improve the human condition. Why study human behavior from the sociological perspective? Why not from the psychological, anthropological, biological or economic perspective? This is how values come into being, it is how they will affect what we discover. Is what we study TRUE? Probably not. Is what we study true? We will only know if we apply the scientific method which tells us to keep our own bias out of the study
We try to do so, but often are not able. Remember that I said that what we believe influences the kinds of questions that we ask, the types of topics we study. Some sociologists are interested in social inequality, they focus on the poor and powerless so that we can understand them and perhaps do something about it. Others focus on the rich and powerful, so we can figure out how to curb that power. Are there other ways of looking at the rich and powerful, the poor and powerless? What are they? How would you do it, what kinds of questions might you ask in this context?
CONCLUSION: sociologists attempt to free themselves of personal values and bias by using the scientific method. They are able to do so to about the same degree as physicists.
these are the beliefs, values and expectations that guide our behavior. A culture consists of institutions that set up ways to behave in certain realms (e.g., the family, the economy, the education and so on). In addition culture includes the technology and techniques. (This is being written and presumably read on a computer, that occurs in the context of a particular culture and set of expectations, using a given language.)
the time period, i.e., December, 1990 when this is written. Events in our time affect how we think and act. At present we find ourselves involved in Saudi Arabia, that fact will affect how you and I act over the next year. Last year at this time, the Berlin wall had just been broached, 19 years ago it had just gone up (I was in Germany in the Army the year the wall was built, again in Germany on a choir tour the year the wall was brought down). These events affect how we think and act, what we believe to be important, what we as members of society are willing to do or not to do and therefore what our society seems to be willing to do. Time is also involved in the set of experiences that we have, I was born during the Great Depression (ancient history to many of you), went to school during THE WAR (WW II); graduated from high school during the McCarthy / post Korean war era, went to graduate school during the Vietnam / Civil Rights era. Each of these events shapes how I think and feel about current events.
As I re-read this in January, 1997, I am reminded how quickly things change. This month the United States is engaged in the last phase of a peace keeping effort in one of the former Soviet client states - Bosnia-Herzegovina. Think about how this will influence your view of the world at some future time.
We are all individuals, we believe we know who we are and we act accordingly (in spite of the culture, time that has influenced us). As self aware subjects, we will react (or act) to any study of us, respond how we think we should, act how we think the sociologists think we should or some other such action.
Nevertheless, there are things that we do that appear to be general, apply to broad categories of people. I have said I am a product of the several eras, those eras and those events mean that I will behave in a manner similar to others who have experienced those things. I am a middle class American, this means that I will act in many ways that are similar to other middle class Americans (my speach pattern, where I choose to live, for whom I choose to vote, whether I vote or not, how I express myself and under what conditions, these are all predictable and can be discovered and checked).
The key to the above is that of discovery and checking. Although I am self aware, there are things about me that others can discover and can use to predict how I will behave under what circumstances. If I am really concerned with this self-awareness, I can use procedures that do not involve the subject directly, I can observe them when they are not aware of my observation (unobtrusive measures describe in Stark, Garbology and so on). Be sure to read Berger carefully on this point as well. In most of that essay, Berger discusses how we as self-aware, free individuals do act in an apparently deterministic social world.
Because people share certain characteristics (education, occupation, social class, ethnicity, region / place of residence, sex), their behavior often is predictable in terms of these characteristics, some would say that how they think and act is determined by them. For example, sociologists and political scientists are often the most socially and politically liberal faculty at the University, engineers and biologists the most conservative. The more education you have the more likely you are to read, and to be interested in classical music. If you are middle class, you will live in the suburbs, send your kids to the University and possibly vote Republican. If you are middle-class professional you may live in the inner city, send your kids to an integrated public school and vote Democratic.
Culture, ethnic background also establish, determine how we will behave.
How does our culture determine who we are, how we behave? Give some examples. Keep in mind that language establishes what we can and cannot discuss, and how we discuss it.
Even as we discuss social determinism (if you grow up in the projects, you will drop out school and eventually live in the projects yourself) we recognize that we make choices, that we are individuals and can often go against these socially predetermined patterns. How can these two things exist side by side? How is it that we have choice, free-will yet can also predict how classes or groups of people will behave? Give me some examples of these contradictory behaviors, how do YOU explain them? See also the extensive discussion given the topic by Peter Berger, especially chapters x and x.
I hope that you have taken the opportunity to answer many of the questions that I posed in this discussion. As you go over your answers one thing should become very clear to you: we act in the context of the group -- it is the group that influences our behavior. The realization of the strength and importance of the group is the heart of the sociological perspective. We are shaped by our society, our culture, our time and by the groups to which we belong. Structures (class and community) also affect us and our behaviors. In the discussion I have mentioned the differences between middle, working and upper classes, I have also suggested that differences exist between middle class folks who live within the city and those who live in the suburbs. The sociological perspective will show us what these things are and how they influence our behavior. Let us begin our sociological journey.
Copyright © 1996, 1997,1998, 1999,2000 by Richard H. Anderson, the Department of Sociology and the University of Colorado at Denver.
This page last revised: November 15, 1999. Please contact Richard H. Anderson (randerso@carbon.cudenver.edu) if you experience any problems or have comments about these pages.