Hi Valeriie: I agree with Angus "That Guy Really Knows His Theory" Vail in that the table is nicely organized and an interesting way to get students to approach the material. I can only imagine, in that teaching these theories to HS students, it must be challenging to get them to engage. So I also like the bottom item that asks them to apply these theories to their school.
A couple of things that they might also find interesting and useful if added to the matrix might be 1) critiques of the perspectives, and 2) how each accounts for social change. Cheers, Kathy Kathy Stolley, Ph.D. Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice Virginia Wesleyan College 1584 Wesleyan Drive Norfolk, VA 23502 757-233-8768 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "D. Angus Vail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] >Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: Help with theory map... >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:11:22 -0700 > > > >Hi, Valerie and other dear teachers. I have a couple/few critiques of your >table. Before I hit you with the negatives, though, it's a nice way to >organize the material for your students: it gives them a chance to have >some input in how they learn the material and it also makes the divisions >clear, and the points on which those diffferences become apparent. Nicely >done. A few things to think about... > >1) Not all functionalism is structural (think Kai Erikson, for example), so >you may just want to make that category "Functionalism." > >2) Theories don't have methods, so you really can't ask them which methods >are associated with which theories. There are, of course, lots of survey >analysts who are functionalist, but there are also ethnographers (again, >think Kai Erikson, but you could also make an argument for Goffman, >Zerubavel, and other dramaturgical analysts being functionalist); there are >state theorist Marxists, Weberian statisticians, and ethnographers (Rick >Fantasia comes to mind), all in the conflict tradition; and there are, of >course, lots of interactionist ethnographers, but the entire Iowa tradition >is quantitatively oriented. > >3) Along similar lines, theories don't necessarily have "micro" or "macro" >orientations. This is a flaw with American sociological labeling more than >anything else. The Brits and Europeans prefer to think in terms of >structure and agency. One can do structural analysis in micro kinds of >ways (I'm thinking of all good Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis >right off the top of my head), and you can certainly do agentic analysis in >macro kinds of ways (in fact, most competant ethnography reaches at least >the mezo level of analysis since process should be generic if it's >interesting)l > >4) All interactionism is interpretive, but not all interpretive sociology >is interactionist (eth/meth, phenomenology, pomo are all perspectives that >work within an interpretive framework, and none of them is explictly >interactionist). Here again we get into the structure agency debate. Most >kinds of pomo/poststructural/postcolonial/postpostism make claims at some >level to addressing structural issues, although their orientation discounts >the requisite methods used to study structure in any empirical way. > >5) Just to be a fly in the ointment: where do you put Goffman, Garfinkel, >Schutz, Habermas, Giddens, Bourdieu? Each of them defies easy >classification. Most would consider Goffman an interactionist, but he >himself said he was closer to Durkheim than Mead, which takes him out of >that camp; Garfinkel's advisor was Parsons and he virtually declared war on >SI as he was making Eth/Meth a perspective; Schutz has a similar problem as >Garfinkel (w/o the declaring war bit) because phenomenology focuses so >exclusively on interpretation that it often ignores the interacting part; >some call Habermas a postmodernist, but he's empirically oriented; Giddens >would call his perspective "Structuration" because it defies the >structure/agency divide and explicitly tries to find the intersection >between the two levels of analysis; and finally Bourdieu scorns >interactionism throughout his >major works, yet he cites Goffman and Garfinkel more than he does Marx, and >he's fundamentally a strucurationist (perhaps better than Giddens since he >actually does the empirical work instead of just theorizing it). > >Some of this stuff may be deeper into theoretical discussions than you can >go with your students, but you should take them all into mind as you try to >come up with clean and clear boundaries. Sometimes they don't exist. If I >was going to pay attention to any of them more than the others, 2&3 are the >really important ones. Theories really do not have methods. They are >different facets of sociological analysis; don't conflate them. Likewise, >theories don't have levels of analysis (micro v. macro), nor units of >analysis (structure v. agency). They provide analytical lenses with which >people can see and explain the world with various methods, levels of >analysis, and/or units of analysis. > >Hope that helps. As always, A. > > > > > >D. Angus Vail >Associate Professor of Sociology >Willamette University >900 State Street >Salem, OR 97301 >Phone: 503.370.6313 >Fax: 503.370.6512 > >"It's not enough to know that things work. >The laurels go to those who can show HOW they work." > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [email protected] >Subject: TEACHSOC: Help with theory map... >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:33:46 EDT > > > >If any of you have time, could you please critique the attached social >theory graphic organizer and offer your input? I teach juniors and seniors >at a large urban high school. We use John Macionis text, Sociology (ninth >edition). > >Thank you! > >Valerie L. Bugni >English I Honors and sociology > >Spring Valley High School >3750 S. Buffalo Drive >Las Vegas, NV 89147 > >(702) 799-2580 ext. 3221 - phone >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - email > >Mrs. Bugni's website: www.thebugsroom.com >School website: www.spvhs.net > > ><< SocialTheoryGraphicOrganizer.pdf >> > > > > >> > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
