Talk:Sociology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since August 2006.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
A Sociology has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Sociology, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Older discussion

i'd like to ask for more profound meaning or discussion regarding scientific sociology!!!! or some references specifically "scientific sociology" or just e-mail, dodslexrudval@yahoo.com.... tnx...>!!!!!

hey, help me please!!! i want to know the history of scientific sociology!!!! tnx... email me on sanosuke_04@yahool.com,, tnx..

I'd like to see some reference to sociology and the internet. Wiki's are a sociological phenomenon, and the co-ordination of anti-Iraq demonstrations accross the planet was internet dependent. The concept of communities online has been discussed elsewhere but these two aspects are newer. Rowena

The sociology page seems to me rather messy -- most of it are links to special sociologies, sociologists or sociological schools and methods. Maybe w should clean it up and rewrite it majorly. In the present state it looks like sociology isn't a science, but rather a colourful conglomerate consisting of very different parts. I don't think that's right. --till we *)

There might be good interdepartmental politics reasons within universities for promoting sociology as a science, but speaking as a sociologist myself, I'm of the view that 'colourful conglomerate consisting of very different parts' is a more apt description of sociology than is the term 'science'. To that extent the page reflects what it is. But in any case the page certainly looks much more informative than it did in November last year (when the above comment was made). I'm a relative latecomer to this page in any case, and I appreciate the way its developing (June 2003). (Olly).

I removed the recently added noosphere.cc link, because this seems to be one very special project ("integrative knowledge"), which could be classified as one sociological method if you take the category in a wide sense. I think it's better to use external links that link to sociology portals and source websites than to websites for special theories and methods. Otherwise, I think I could add a dozen or so websites linking to my pet theories.

BTW: Top-adding or bottom-adding? --till we *) 19:29 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

Removing these two paragraphs because (1) If I don't understand what they mean, there's no chance in hell an average layman will; and (2) they look a lot more personal than neutral reportage of the field. Mr. Clihor, please note that it is Wikipedia's policy not to include "original research", or to support unconventional theories except to report on their existence. We are an encyclopedia. The purpose of an article here is to give a layman a basic understanding of present knowledge in the field. If you want to write commentary, speculation, and original research, you should clearly mark it as such and keep it on second pages (for example "H. W. Clihor on Time") --LDC

However, in deference to Mr. Comte, Social Psychology, yet another discipline has embarked upon the study of how society's structure influences individuals and groups. Perhaps one of its founders, W.I. Thomas' definition of situational dynamics best describes how these varied disciplines might be related: He wrote: "If you define a situation as real, it is real to you in its consequences...however, your definition of a situation may be influenced by how others define the same situation."
This simple paradigm calls into question the four disciplines of Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, Social Psychology and Traditional psychology and how they relate to each other and to their various definitions of society. Perhaps they should be grouped into a single discipline called Cultural Sociology. (Which would include all four disciplines and certain studies within Economics, History, Political Science, Statistics and Chaos Theory.)

The topic Situational Dynamics sounds interesting. Tell us more. --Ed Poor

From the rest of the text submitted by Mr. Clihor over the day, he seems to be what we old hands on the net call a "mild psychoceramic"--i.e., a crackpot. I seriously doubt that anyone could learn anything useful from him. Let's not encourage him. --LDC


I'm not sure to whom I am speaking. But as an "old hand" on the internet as well, crackpot seems derisive, deleterious and more than overtly limited in its most demonstrative attempt at true crtiticism. I guess name-calling is the last bastion of the uninformed. LDC overlooks the fact that multi-disciplinary studies of social dynamics and situational dynamics have been conducted for over a half century. Perhaps if LDC took at look at the collected topics of Social Psychology, Aggression Theory, Studies in Emotional Arousal, Cognitive Dissonance, Propoganda and for that matter a host of articles too numerous to mention the light of illumination might burn away an indifferent veneer. Please, if deletions are to occur at least have them available for peer review...by at least someone somewhere capable of making an intelligent decision. Further, the ceramic nature of pscychology is an interesting concept. (LOL). I hope we can continue this discourse with LDC and maybe come to some agreement upon which material is fodder for further dicussion, inclusion and who indeed may not be psychoceramic, but an "unschooled, or biolgically silent burro" of which other minds might glean a fitting demonstrative conclusion to LDC's interesting "criticisms".

[edit] Sociology problem oriented?

Removed this: Sociology is a problem-oriented discipline. It examines actuall (sic) social problems such as racism, sexism, mostly in developed countires such as the United States for two reasons: (a) most of it is already covered above, and (b) the remainder is nonsense. Sociology is no more "problem oriented" than a host of other disciplines - psychology is an obviolus example, and less so than several (consider criminology).

Of course, many sociologists are "problem oriented" - but saying this is one thing, saying that it is "a problem oriented discipline" is quite another. The two senses in which sociolgy might best be regarded as "problem oriented" are (a) insofar as it is a subject area often taught to aspiring social workers - but note that they themselves are not "sociologists", they are social workers with some sociological training alongside the training they had in several other areas - and (b) in the rather narrow historical sense that 19th & early 20th century functionalist sociology grew up in response to the twin problems of "how do we explain these massive social changes", and "how do we respond to the explanation offered by the conflict theorists (in particular, Marx)?"

(Please excuse my very belated entry here. I did the edit and said "see talk", then got called away by work (the work I get paid for, I mean) for quite a few hours.) Tannin 08:03 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work

SLR commented just now: rewrote the first paragraph; the rest sure needs work! Alas, he is absolutely right. For an entry with such a long edit history, this one is vapid, disjointed, and damn near useless. Some items to consider, in no particular order:

1: SLR, thankyou for providing that new introduction, no doubt at short notice and more-or-less off the top of your head. It's a vast improvement, but I'm afraid I'm going to take issue with it just the same. To me, it reads as a good short introduction to Durkheim and his followers. I don't think it applies nearly as well to Compte or Marx, and possibly not to Weber either. (But I am weak on Weber and wouldn't push that last thought strongly.) This comment notwithstanding, for the time being I think it's more important to concentrate on other areas, and come back to the intro when the rest of the entry hasd some shape and rigour.

You are welcome, and you are absolutely right about the limitations of what I wrote -- although I hope that it can still provide a working basis. I am not a sociologist, although I have a pretty good grasp of its history and current practice. I think the main limitation of what I wrote is that it reflects U.S. sociology. The article certainly needs at least a paragraph on "critical sociology" and "humanistic sociology" (I am thinking of Gouldner and C. Wright Mills and maybe Reisman) in the U.S. and "Cultural Studies" in Great Britain (I am thinking of Hall -- it seems to me that in the UK cultural studies = sociology + marx which is quite different from what the term means in the U.S.). But anyone outside the US should know that US sociology, regardless of its history, remains dominated by those two gifts of Durkheim, functionalism and quantitative methods.
Ideally, the article should indeed provide a solid history, including non-sociologist forbears like Compte and Marx; classic sociologists like Simmel, Durkheim, and Weber, as well as Schutz and Mead and their heirs (the fact is, Wikipedia just needs top-notch articles on these people; I myself have put a fair amount of work into the Marx article and am pretty satisfied, but I cannot speak to the others). The risk of such a history is that it can idealize what sociologists would like to think of themselves, or what they think sociology ought to be. Such an account, though valuable, ought to be balanced by a fair assessment of institutionalized sociology: what kind of sociological research must one do to get a job at a top institution? What kind of research gets big grants? Personally, I love Simmel, but how many graduate students (especially outside of the elite schools) read him? I love Giddens (at least, the early Giddens) and Garfinkel -- but how many graduate students these days are working within their respective projects? Who dominates the professional organizations? (Aren't these precisely the questions a sociologist would ask, if conducting a sociological study?) I am not the perfect person to do this, but this is nevertheless a good part of what I think the article should become and I hope others like Tannin can start filling in the gaps and reorganizing it.
I have some other scattered remarks but in the absence of anything else, I agree with everything Tannin writes here, Slrubenstein
I don't know about US sociology, but I do know, that Marx, Simmel, Giddens and Garfinkel *are* read and used in sociology in continental Europe. Quantitative views and Durkheimianism isn't the whole of the world ... till we *)

2: The list of branches is chaotic and needs structuring into coherence. Most of the entries on it are just empty links. I am inclined to put it here for now and replace it with a shorter list. (Better a little bit of information hat makes sense than a lot on info that makes nonsense.)

210.21.221.178 10:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)Ed Nilges: I have tried to add some of the requested depth to the social theory section which I think was very superficial...while maintaining NPOV, by writing my change as a dialog between scientific sociology and "theory" which doesn't terminate in blows, and accusations of "cheese eater" and "nerd". I started by scare-quoting mainstream. Come on, guys, globalize.

[edit] Branches

The editor always omits my comments about the sociology of higher education. I love Wikipedia but I respectfully disagree with her. There are many issues that need to be explored in the very young field of higher education sociology. Cary Nelson's book "Will Teach for Food" demonstrated in great detail how labor problems with TAs and faculty affect universities and colleges. When Allen Hale co-founder of Comet Hale-Bopp couldnt find an academic job after finishing a PhD in Astronomy from New Mexico State University he forced the general public to confront issues about underemployment. There are numerous journals devoted to sociology but not one specifically for the sociology of higher education. There are numerous issues that a sociologist could research to better understand higher education. For example, most universities define a doctoral program by course work, a comprehensive examination, and the dissertation. By contrast a school in Ohio defines students specialization by the dissertation. If a student writes a dissertation in anatomy, this school will let him claim a specialzation in anatomy without showing by examination that he knows anatomy. The school tries to get around this issue by saying that students are getting a PhD in the liberal arts knowing perfectly good and well that students are useing a back door to claim an expertise that they dont have. The explosion in Nurse Practitioners and Certified Physician's Assistants is another area where sociologists could contribute. In a midium size city like Tampa there are two graduate degree programs to prepare Nurse Practitioners not including The University of Phoenix and not including the rest of Florida. Sociologists could greatly contribute to education if they would study the negative effects of putting such a huge number of a controversial professionals on the market. Nurse Practitioners date back to 1965 in contrast to older more established professions. By contrast lay midwifes date back to ancient Egypt and even nurse midwifes date back to the early twentieth century.


3: I'm not sure what to make of the link to Human ecology. Does it belong here? Is the Human Ecology stub itself of any value? The Systems theory link is also questionable. The entry there is purely anthropological in content, and I've not stumbled across systems theory as a branch of sociology. Does it belong in the top-level sociology article? If so, where does it fit in?

I probably should have deleted this link, but not being a sociologist I wanted to give whoever wrote it the benefit of the doubt -- but I agree with you, Slrubenstein
Systems theory is a major branch of sociology, at least in Germany (Niklas Luhmann), so it should stay here. (And the borderline between anthropology and sociology isn't that exact, either, but that is another issue). till we *)

4: There is a crying need for entries on the major theoretical perspectives. They should be described briefly in the top-level article and the links should lead to solid, comprehensive entries, not what we have now, which is a confused stub with a mixture of information and misinformation; nothing at all; and a one-sentence stub. I think I have a half-finished replacement on my home machine for functionalism, if so, I'll try to knock it into enough shape to plug in later this weekend.

Enough of my ranting for now. I've done a fair bit of cutting the ugly fat off the bones of this entry, I better go home to where my references are and start putting some healthy flesh on them instead (before someone reverts me for simply being destructive). Tannin 09:07 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi all, I just joined Wikipedia. A comment about branches. One way to get a handle on branches is to look at the American Sociological Association Section page. They list many of the branches listed above, and others. Also look at the International Sociological Assocation Research Committees.

Hope this helps. gene, April 20, 2004

gsociology *)

[edit] Re Human ecology

Re Human ecology -- that is, as far as I know, a scientific field or discipline that emerged in the wake of the formation of ecology / environmental sciences. It looks onto human beings as part of eco-systems (including built environment, industrial society) and trys to apply the principles of the science of ecology on the living being "human". So it is -- AFAIK, and a bit like sociobiology -- in so far similiar or related to sociology, that it looks onto the human being and its behavior/actions, but with a background rooted in natural science. I'll try to enhance the h.e. entry. -- till we *) 15:30, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some additions and changes

I added some sentences (e.g. qualitative branch), and I deleted the following, because it seems to me (and I am a studied sociologist ;-)) a rather minor and special issue, maybe valid for Durkheim, but not valid for sociology in general.

One noticeable point in sociology is it distinguishes troubles and issues. In sociology, troubles occur in individual context. For example, the couple may divorce because of personal reasons such as having affiar. On the other hand, issues occur in social context. For example, the expansion of working hours may increase the divorce rate. Sociologists believe the increase of divorce rate is not explained by the personal matterns but by social context.

If someone wants to put it back, I would rather like to hear an explanation, why this distinction is relevant for sociology at large. BTW: I don't think it's wrong -- but I do think it's not important at that place in that article. till we *) 01:17 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Tillwe. Tannin

Tillwe, concerning systems theory -- I stand corrected; thansk for explaining it to me. As for the above passage, I myself have never heard of "troubles" and "issues" used this way. But I do think that the passage is trying to make an important point concerning what Mills called "the Sociological imagination" -- that the problems sociologists study are not individual or personal problems (although individuals may be aware of them, and may experience them personally) but rather social facts (yeah, quoting Durkheim, sorry) that can only be understood in terms of social processes and structures. I think this is a major issue that this article should develop. In part his is one way to distinguish sociology from psychology. But I think there is more at stake: have either of you seen Bowling for Columbine? At one point Michael Moore suggests to the manager (or publicist) of a Lockheed Martin plant that one reason American teenagers may be so violent is because they see their parents come home at the end of the day from having spent all their labors making weapons. The manager says, "I don't see the connection." Now, maybe Moore is wrong and this relationship is not a good "explanation" for American violence, but it still seems to me that this is a good example of the sociological imagination that is of a ratehr different sort than saying children are just naturally agressive, or this particular child had an unhappy home life, or that child was picked on in school. This sociological shift in perspective is in my opinion one of its great contributions to society in general, so I'd like to see it developed. I am not a sociologist as such so I hesitate making further changes to the article -- but if either of you can relate to what I am saying, perhaps you can incorporate it into the article in layman's terms, and also provide something of an intellectual geneaology to link it to specific sociologists -- I do not think this is a specifically Durkheimian view (you can find examples of it in Compte and Marx, at least) and it should be presented first in an ecumenical way, then more specifically...Slrubenstein

Yes, you are making good sense, SLR. In a way, that is what sociology is. I haven't forgotten my intention to expand this entry, just got distracted by various other matters over the weekend. (Something to do with having the attention span of a five-year-old in a lolly shop, no doubt.) Tannin

[edit] Social Theory

Added section on social theory. It is probably controversial and, at least, needs grammatical and style editing. Also, it's location on that page is certainly not optimal, but couldn't think of better way to handle. User:Lunchboxhero


It should be noted "social theory" is used differently by different people. e.g. James Coleman's Foundations of Social Theory Defining "social theory" is difficult but it needs improvement... the section should be shorter and focus on relating "social theory" to the discipline with a link to the full article on social theory. User:RedHouse18

[edit] Intro parapharsing Giddens

Added short intro paraphrasing Anthony Giddens Sociology (I only have the German translation, so if anyone has the English original, maybe s/he can improve the intro; what I was paraphrasing is the end of the first paragraph in chapter 1, Sociology: Problems and Perspective). -- till we *) 15:24, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

"Social" makes more sense in English in place of "societal', which sounds redundant in the same phrase with "societies". Does it catch the German sense equally well? I've made that change, on the assumption it does. --Jerzy(t) 01:39, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

This is of value only if it is typical, so there's no point in sourcing it except on this talk page:

Anthony Giddens -- in his textbook Sociology -- defines sociology as the study of the societal lives of humans, groups and societies. --Jerzy(t) 01:39, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)
Uh, that's not that easy. I would say it is a fairly typical definiton (but then we can omit the "typical textbook" also), but on the other hand, every sociologist has it's own definition, so I would be happier with attribution (and maybe one or two other definitions from other textbooks, a la "Giddens says, sociology is ..., whereas ... defines sociology as the ..."). -- till we *) 13:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it could be interesting; plz show us more, either here or on the article. --Jerzy(t) 17:14, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

Seems to me a multi-person-project ;-) ... at the moment, I have the problem that I don't have that much time on my hands, and that I don't have that much textbooks on my hands (but in the university library, but see: time), and that most of the textbooks I could get access to are in German. So, English language sociologists etc., please look up in your textbooks how sociology is defined there, write it down here, and let us sort out the commons and the differences ... -- till we *) 01:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Anthropology

What is the difference between Socio and Anthropology? I have read a simplistic view that anthro is for people different from the researcher and socio for people like the resarcher.

[edit] Cultural anthropology and sociology

What is the difference between cultural anthropology and sociology? Neither one of our articles about the topics makes any mention of the other. I'm guessing the subtle differences between community, society, and culture are involved, which I roughly understand. I'm no expert though, so I figured I'd best ask here. • Benc • 06:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The differences are mainly historical, in that they came out of two different disciplines. Their subject matter has tended more and more to overlap. Sociology began in the study of contemporary societies in the developed world. Cultural anthropology began in the study of cultures characterized at the time as "primitive". -- Jmabel 07:09, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Oppenheimer

A person using Wikipedia anonymously (IP address 217.188.*.*) is putting Franz Oppenheimer (by the way: the article about him still looks a bit like a babelfish translation) into the founding of sociology part of this article, and I'm putting him out. See some discussion about this here. As far as I know, sociology today is pretty clear about the influence found even today of Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. One could probably add half a dozen more -- including Karl Mannheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, Joseph Schumpeter and maybe also Franz Oppenheimer -- but I think, to list only the three first mentioned classics gives a good and neutral view on the current sociological consensus about who were the important founders of the discipline with lasting influence. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: http://agso.uni-graz.at/lexikon/klassiker/00cont/00_alp.htm#p shows (in German language) information about what they consider "50 most important classics" of sociology. Oppenheimer isn't included. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • There is times in history were the "current consensus" reflects nothing more than the inertia of the academic world. This is why Franz Oppenheimer, one of the founding fathers and leader of german Frankfurt School has been put to the archive. Qui bono? One can be "important" or "fundamental". Oppenheimer was the all known and widely published fundamental thinker of sociology. Since todays fragemented sociology is one the verge of collapse, finding back to its roots will be the first step to refactor everything into a universal social science.
  • Speaking of the courageous scientists of today, they are in no need to refer to any type of "hit lists" published by someone because they can use the original data provided over the internet and think independent. Hit lists are mindclosers. Mindclosers! The artist John Lennon is "fundamental" to the music world even though he's not in the pop charts of today.
  • I would sincerely recommend to open the spectrum and use all the possibilities provided. As Henri Bergson points out, there is far more within the possible but unknown than within the known. If there is a dozen more, go ahead categorize and paste them! We owe this to all of our predecessors. As in technological research (to repair the enviromental damages) we should not drop any piece of sociological knowlegde (to overcome the social diseases) created.
  • Why isn't Franz Oppenheimer included in the pop charts of todays important sociologists? This is a question of sociological thought itsself! This leads to scientific research dedicated to truth. You are invited to find out. Compared to the research fellows decades ago, you have no ecxuse;) Its all on the web.
Anonymous one, I agree with your last point: "Why isn't Franz Oppenheimer ... This leads to scientific research dedicated to truth." This may be the case, even if I don't believe in truth. But it points to one important issue: obviously you agree that the "current consensus" of sociology doesn't give Oppenheimer the importance he maybe deserves, and that it would need research to find out about the whys and whos of this phenomenon. But this means, that Wikipedia, which aims at giving a neutral view of mainstream reality (to say it bluntly), isn't the best place to fight for the inclusion of Oppenheimer in the influential classics. This is neither neutral nor is it a "proved fact" (what ever that may be). It is an ongoing struggle on the one hand and current research on the other hand. Both do not belong into a Wikipedia article informing about sociology. Both may have their place and their relevance to the Franz Oppenheimer article, and of course Oppenheimer should be included in categories and lists of sociologists. But not here, next to Marx, Durkheim and Weber.
Maybe an excerpt from the German Wikipedia helps to show my point. In the Franz Oppenheimer article there (our's is a translation of an older version), it is written:
Verbreitung der Lehre
Oppenheimer bildet eine Brücke zwischen verschiedensten Schulen, was ihm zu seiner Lebenszeit nirgends Würdigung einbrachte und was bis heute dazu führt, dass der Wert seiner Lehre noch nicht einmal im Ansatz erkannt wurde. Er entwickelt eine Denkweise, die jede herrschende Klasse oder denen die mit politischen Mitteln an die Herrschaft gelangen wollen, in Unruhe versetzen muss. Seine Werke wurden 1933 in Deutschland verboten und eingezogen. Die Art, wie er die Verhältnisse seiner (und unserer) Zeit grundlegend in Frage stellte und dann einer unspektakulären und konsequenten Lösung zuführt, ist der eigentliche Wert seiner wissenschaftlichen (Beweis) Methode.
Damit wird auch erklärt, dass er nahezu nicht mehr sichtbar ist, obwohl seine Arbeiten für die Lösung der sozialen Frage aktuell sind. Für jene, die auf der Suche nach der großen Geschichte sind, wird er als neue Entdeckung in Erscheinung treten.
To paraphrase this in English: "Spread of Oppenheimers methods - Oppenheimer formed a briged between different schools. This leads to ignorance about his work at his lifetime as well as today. His way of thinking was seen - and has to be seen - as problematic by every ruling class, so consequentially his works were forbidden in 1933 Germany. This helps to explain why he is invisible until today, even if his work is very important for solving the social question of today. He will be a big discovery for those who look out for him." -- This says all, doesn't it? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are enforcing a doctrine that screws up the intention of wikipedia. YOU are actually destroying the absolute and non-negotiable NPOV. By the way, YOU try to enforce your point of view, your german mainstream - rtfm on WP:NPOV.
If you don't believe in truth, why are you doing this? Wikipedia is not about "giving a neutral view of mainstream reality". Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. Germans never seem to change. The human race is more than the Germans. Sociology is more than what you learn in Germany. Come on, guy, globalize! Expand your horizon. We know Franz Oppenheimer alog with libertarian style writers like Thomas Jefferson, Albert J. Nock, J. Stuart Mill and others. He was mentor to Adolf Lowe. ... I searched them and found this german website for you: http://www.lsr-projekt.de/msinda.html .
FYI: i digged up some german websites on Frankfurt School and Oppenheimer, may be you can read:
http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/presse/rzpotsda.htm
http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/institut/geschichte1.htm
I don't need to fight for inclusion because Wikipedia includes all. NPOV! Its not my job to teach you the history of sociology.
I've been aware of the excerpt from the German Wikipedia long time ago. Fine to the german wikipedia and no use for english version. It's true but partial. Your translation i don't understand to go for argument. To me this goes like the typical german way of interpreting reality. Do you learn to go this one-way at school? Outside germany (like U.S.) he is quite known. No one would bother to put him among the theorists of sociology. They're not so much into Marx but no one has erased that figure! By the way: you erased a name you're not familiar with just to go for your doctrine. Think of that! If everyone would erase the names he don't know about! The opposite way would be propper to get an NPOV style. May be i'll dig up some original papers sometime at library so the wikipedia community has something to build upon. May be you have to look up yourself. I wouldn't build upon the teacher at school. They are mindclosers most of the time!
What makes science science? Science is leaving open options for revisions (Alfred North Whitehead). Enforcing your narrow mind you are on the opposite of science, destroying options and therefore revisions. May be the cause is that you don't care for the colored truth, as you've written at the beginning.


As I said, dear anonymous participant, please show us an introductionary academic text about sociology (from the US or from somewhere else) that mentions Oppenheimer in the same league as Marx, Weber and Durkheim, and I'll be happy to include him so prominently in the article. As far as I know, for example Giddens Sociology does not mention him. BTW: I'm happy with Oppenheimer in the list of sociologist, and I think it would be a good idea to mention him maybe in a separate "history of sociology" article -- but I really don't understand your "typical german deletion of names" point. Put it the other way round, we should mention all of Simmel, Mannheim, Schumpeter, Tönnies (to name only a few Germans) as well as all the Chicago school people as well as ... in the section about the history of sociology. Do you think we should do this? Or do you think there is something like a relevance criterium?
  • yeah you got it, finaly! - all are relevant!
Read about Wikipedia:NPOV -- this isn't identical to "all are relevant". And without relevance (that is: drawing distinctions), there wouldn't be any science. BTW: it is seen as not very nice behavior to edit links into talk texts written by others. But do you know what http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/fo32a.htm is about?. Have you read it? It's a long rant about the state of sociology in Germany in 1932 as seen by Franz Oppenheimer. I could publish a text about what I find important in sociology on my website, call this "Introduction into sociology by Till Westermayer", and it won't give me any more academic relevance or reputation. You can't decide yourself if the rest of the world thinks your ideas are that of a genius or to be ignored. So, you still haven't presented a actual introduction into sociology talking about Franz Oppenheimer, US or not.
Oh yes, and http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/ep64a.htm is a talk from 1964 by the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe university of Frankfurt, published in their university journal. That is the same university which gave the professorship to Oppenheimer. Again no sign of relevance for the sociology of today!
till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if google is a good relevance indicator, but look at these numbers:
(all for "introduction to sociology" + name - wikipedia")
Max Weber 1.600
Karl Marx 1.100
Emile Durkheim 949
Robert E. Park 120
Joseph Schumpeter 18
Franz Oppenheimer 1
-- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • think about: wenn all of the Franz Oppenheimer writings in germany got banned and withdrawn from public in 1933, how could you know about him? google knows only what people write about and put on the www. at those times the www wasn't invented! i thought you knew that. Science is not about pop charts.
P.S.: What is this about typical Germans? And the libertarian POV mentioned above?
  • those who ask don't know. those who know don't ask.
the oracle is ridiciulous
P.P.S. (sorry): Even http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/institut/geschichte1.htm says that Oppenheimer was seen as an outsider to sociology even at his time, and mentiones his influence not on sociology, but on the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany via Ludwig Erhard and others.
  • he was the first one to the Chair for Sociology in Germany ever. So no outsider! Don't mess up. The center is not the outside.
Read your own reading suggestions. It says that even the contemporary (proto)-sociologists considered him an outsider, even in the center.

[edit] BTW: Social theory

What should we do with this long "history of social theory" narrative at the end of the article? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My whole being says, "Bag it!" But then I realized that it's the only major contribution to this page in months. Maybe those who particiated in the Franz O. shouting match above want to transfer some of that energy to the actual article, which is pretty horrid right now.--Jcdavis 09:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of sociology

I suggest that all the history of sociology that is present here is transferred to the new article "History of sociology" and only a short resumé is left here. Then the link to the article "history of sociology" can be put also on the list in the article "history of science". --Eleassar777 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When this section is long enough, and the article is above 32kb, we will surely do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


In this section, the derivation of the word sociology does not match that in the introduction: "The term "sociology" was coined by Auguste Comte in 1838 from Latin socius (companion, associate) and Greek lógos (speech)" versus "The meaning of the word comes from the suffix "-ology" which means "study of," derived from Greek, and the stem "soci-" which is from the Latin word socius, meaning member, friend, or ally, thus referring to people in general." I having completed my sociology major at uni this year, I have never read in any textbook that sociology derived from the greek word logos (although there are references to it on the internet, the main online etymology websites support the suffix -logy as stated in the introduction) so I propose to delete this part of the sentence and just leave "The term "sociology" was coined by Auguste Comte in 1838".

[edit] Social research methods

I added a small section about social research methods. I briefly mentioned the main methods used in sociology, and discussed how what theoretical position you take can change and alter your conclusions and preferred method use. I am a sociology major at Georgia State, so any suggestions or comments would be awesome. Please be kind, this is my first real addition. Thanks.

Noah 04:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I like the new picture -- we see at least one institution, groups, different people in interaction -- a food visualisation of sociology. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A point. Although I would like to see a more people. And more pictures. But I guess it's a start :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Cultural appropriation has just been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Public education and Flirting as well as Teenage pregnancy are also currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive and may be of interest to you. If you are interested in contributing, please vote or comment here: This week's improvement drive--Fenice 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Who? No, it is not even to FA status yet. What's your point?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
it does not have to be featured article quality. it just needs to be cleaned up for Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Standard articles to qualify. -- Zondor 03:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon lead addition

I don't think the following belong in the lead, so I removed it, but maybe you can incorporate it somewhere else:--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

provided a scientific counterpart to settlement of houses, and also provided a disturbing insight of life in the slums (ghettos). Industrialization and urbanization were definitions used by the sociologists studying the slums

I agree with Piotrus with the above. Sociology covers a lot more than just the slums. Yes, it does help to explain the phenomenon, but since it is not the sole focus of sociology, it does not belong in the intro. Boneheadmx 01:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Perhaps there should be something about the criticism of sociology? Sociology is often criticized as an academic field, from what I've heard.

I've never heard of any criticism of 'sociology' itself. One can criticise particular doctrines which fall under the general heading of sociology (functionalism, marxism, feminism etc.) but sociology itself is simply the systematic study of human beings in a social context. I can't imagine what one could criticise about the concept of sociology itself. What would you want included? --Davril2020 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Specific research questions can certainly show theoretical and/or empirical disagreement over how much is individual, how much is cultural, how much is relational, how much is otherwise structural, etc. Other fields - psychology or economics, for instance - might approach a given question from different assumptions and attend to different mechanisms. Criticism of the whole premise, though, that social context can (and usually does) matter for explaining human activity seems unlikely to have any coherent proponents. - Ramseyk 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


? Never heard of a criticism of sociology? For better or for worse as an academic discipline it's largely considered a joke by those not involved in the field. Especially within the hard sciences most regard it as jargon-laden vaporising producing very little in the way of actual knowledge, just theorizing with a weak or nonexistant empirical backing. Additionally there's the perception that it's ideologically driven, a bastion for political correctness (such as a theory that continues to focus entirely on environmental factors even when all sorts of evidence from the sciences point to heredity as the central influence.) It's also criticized for being a cupcake major at most universities, though this probably has more to do with academia than the field itself.

I don't know enough about the discipline to comment on whether this criticism is justified, but the perception is very real and likely plays a large role in determining the impact (or lack thereof) that sociological theories have in the world outside of academia. I think it is indeed worth mentioning, but would probably be more appropriate in the article on the social sciences, as anthropology and some of the others are regarded in the same way. --130.126.67.39 06:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well it appears a criticisms section saying as much already exists in the social sciences article. I'll leave it up to you guys to determine whether it belongs here as well. --130.126.67.39 07:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Free market ideas such as 'trickle down' arose partly out of sociology, as did right-wing thinking on community breakdown. Both were significant in right-wing American administrations. Sociology doesn't encompass communism socialism and not much else. Virtually any social theory can be examined sociologically. --Davril2020 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that criticism of the concept of sociology is not criticism of the current state of sociological knowledge. Neither of these is criticism of particular sociological theories or methods. Any of these kinds of criticisms requires verifiability and reliable sources, which means that they'll be criticisms of specific sociological subfields, specific paradigms, specific findings, or specific epistemological stances. To the extent that these accurately reflect ongoing (as opposed to obsolete or resolved) debates within a subfield, these probably belong with their respective subfields' articles. None of the above kinds of criticism is the same as the perception of sociology (in whatever ways accurate or distorted) among academics or students; good luck finding sources other than "everybody knows" for that one. Broad accusations of political bias probably belong with articles about the ideological groups that are verifiably making them. RamseyK 04:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Why are those criteria necessary for sociology and not for the social sciences? It's an honest question, no abrasive intent.

I also don't understand why the criticism needs to be on specific sociolocigal subdisciplines when this is an article on sociology in its broadest form. Based on my (limited) experience with wikipedia, general criticism seems to be considered noteworthy if it is sufficiently widespread, even without sources (whether because sources are impossible or otherwise.) See anything from Heidegger to Competitive eating.

I'm having difficulty following your post because you repeatedly use phrases such as "these criticisms" or "above criticisms" and it is not always clear to me which you are referring to. So I may have entirely misunderstood.

--130.126.67.39 06:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I think that the "criticisms" section in social sciences has a nice scope. I don't know whether or not it ought to be repeated here; maybe a link would be good. The unsigned comments above, though, go aways past that and seemed to cry out for a disambiguation. But so do mine.

1. Criticism of the concept of sociology (i.e., criticism of the very idea that the social context matters for explaining human activity). Too reductionistic a notion to have any coherent defenders, I suspect. It would be a denial of economics and social psychology, too.

2. Criticism of the current state of sociological knowledge (i.e., "sociologists haven't made much progress"). That'd be a whole lot of lumping. But on second thought, compared to fields where lots of people work on one particular problem at once (e.g., particle physics), sociology clearly has less cumulative knowledge. Too many questions and not enough sociologists. The same could be said of the social sciences in general.

3. Criticism of particular theories, methods, or epistemologies. Different subfields do very different things. (Environment vs. heredity is meaningless, for instance, to comparative-historical, political, social movement, social network, or knowledge studies.) There are big debates like quant vs. qual or structuralism vs. post-structuralism, but those seem better-suited for the methods and theory headings. Maybe, though, a criticism heading would be a good place to note contrasts with the approaches of natural sciences and humanities - or to link to such in the broader social sciences article.

4. Perceptions of sociology (e.g., "jargon-laden vaporising", "ideologically driven", or "cupcake major"). Without sources this seems to just degenerate into warring anecdotes. Too often we believe that what people are saying in our narrow social circles must be what people are saying everywhere. (After reading University of California, Irvine's tiresome "Chinese jokes" discussion my own limited experience makes me prefer verifiability to seeing that rumor contest play out again here. Some physical science folks relate their "everybody thinks it's bunk", some social science folks relate their "everybody thinks it's great and suggests something for us to research", some humanities folks relate their "everybody thinks that 'science' is just reproducing privilege", on and on and on.)

5. Accusations that sociologists are just concocting justifications for their left-wing political ideologies. Probably better-suited for the anti-intellectualism article and/or articles about the political groups making such charges. A link to anti-intellectualism seems sensible, either here or at social sciences.

- RamseyK 11:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need a Sociologist

On Anti-vaccinationists. Please. Midgley 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Giddens

I have finished expanding this article. I think it is sufficently content-rich that after some copyediting and addition of references (there are some inline which I'll make visible soon) it can be a FA candidate. Comments and any help would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category cleanup

Category:Sociology is growing too large, with over 600 entries and several dozens of subcats. I'd like to suggest an order here with the creation of following cats:

I am sure quite a few of the articles now in the generic category sociology could be moved to new subcategories by branch (fields). I am not yet sure how to complement terminology/concepts (isn't it too general?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the Category:Branches of sociology where we could put all the subfields of sociology and sociology of ... articles and sub-categories, including e.g. Urban sociology, Medical sociology, Astrosociobiology(?), etc (as in academic disciplines). I also like the idea of a terminology category - but this might be more problematic. Shall we start with the branches and see what's left? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a good place to start. The problem I have with terminology is that almost everything that could fit into sociology could probably fit into the terminology. On a related note, Category:Social research is badly needed, too (I suggested it at Talk:Social research but seems nobody is watching that page).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be my concern with the terminology category. I also agree with the Social research category. The two closest categories appear to be Category:Research methods and Category:Social sciences methodology. I think there would need to be some merging. Back to Category:Branches of sociology, shall we agree on that name? I think it's appropriate, but there may be alternatives (disciplines, sub-fields). I think it would be a good idea to keep the disciplines separate from the theories as far as possible (e.g. Gender studies kept distinct from Feminism, and Economic sociology kept distinct from Marxism (etc)) -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The name can always be changed later. It may be a good idea to see how other academic disciplinaes named their categories and perhaps standarize them. For theories, perhaps a Category:Social theories would be good, and I was also thinking about Category:Sociological paradigms (see sociological paradigm).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult to find many subjects with enough branches for their own category, but there is Category:Branches of philosophy, and Category:Branches of psychology. The category Scientific disciplines has not proved popular. So, Category:Branches of sociology has now been created. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
For now I added added all three branches to Category:Scientific disciplines - at least it will have some use now. Great job with the discipines. I thought up another category: Category:History of sociology, for articles like Chicago school (sociology) and similar. Sounds good?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Tom Fararo we have a very useful scheme. Here are the some suggested categories and comments, which also nicely illustrate some articles that need need to be created. Note that wikified category names are my proposals and thus they may require further revision.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories by scale (Category:Sociology by scale)
Macrosociology (Category:Macrosociology)– focus on “big” processes in terms of time and space
Microsociology (Category:Microsociology) – focus on social situational processes
And micro-macro linkage as a theoretical problem-focus
Also some might add what is not so common:
Mesosociology – (Category:Mesosociology) focus on organizations embedded in macrosocial formations
Categories by components of any modern science (Category:Sociology by scientific components)
Sociological theory (Category:Sociological theory)
Empirical sociological research (Category:Empirical sociological research)
Computational sociology (Category:Computational sociology)
Note: Linkages among these three “nodes” in the triangular image:
Theory-research: sociological explanation
Theory-computation: sociological simulation
Research-computation: sociological data analysis)
Categories by major intellectual interest (Category:Sociology by intellectual interest)
Theoretical sociology (Category:Theoretical sociology)
Aim: develop/refine general concepts and principles
Methods: theoretical research programs that feature specific theories to be tested, refine, extended
World-historical sociology (Category:World-historical sociology)
Aim: interpret or explain modernity/postmodernity/globalization and other world-historical developments
Methods: empirical social-historical studies informed by general and specific theoretical ideas
Critical-normative sociology (Category:Critical-normative sociology)
Aim: advance human welfare as defined in terms of specified ultimate moral values
Methods: critical analysis of belief systems and social structures and empirical studies undertaken in such critical spirit
Categories by social systems analysis (Category:Sociology by social system analysis)
Major social aspects of a social system (suggested by AGIL scheme)
Sociology of economic aspect (economic sociology) (Category:Economic sociology)
Sociology of political aspect (political sociology) (Category:Political sociology)
Sociology of solidary aspect (sociology of groups, sociology of institutions, …?) (Category:Group sociology)
Sociology of cultural pattern maintenance aspect (sociology of ritual, sociology of education) (Category:Cultural sociology)
Also by environments of social system:
Sociology of culture (cat as above?)
Various branches, e.g., sociology of sciences, of philosophies, …
Sociology of motivation/sociology of interests
Sociology of cognition (cognitive sociology)
Categories by professional interest formations
List of sections of the American Sociological Association (Category:ASA categories)
List of sections of review journal, Contemporary Sociology (Category:Contemporary Sociology categories)
Categories by graduate education
List of graduate courses at leading graduate departments (Category:Sociology by graduate courses)
Categories by textbook organization (Category:Sociology by textbook organization)
Chapter headings in leading texts
Categories as found in theory textbooks
Classical sociological theory categories
Classical theorists – Marx, Weber, Simmel, Pareto, Mead, Durkheim, …
Classical paradigms – Durkheimian sociology, Weberian sociology, …
Contemporary sociological theory categories ((sociological paradigms) (Category:Sociology by sociological paradigms)
Functionalism and systems theory (Category:Functionalism, Category:Systems theory)
Conflict theory (Analytical branch, Critical branch) (Category:Conflict theory)
Exchange theory and rational choice theory (Category:Exchange theory, Category:Rational choice theory)
Symbolic interactionism (Category:Symbolic interactionism)
Phenomenology (reality construction, ethnomethodology) (Category:Phenomenology)
Methodological categories (perhaps as found in methods textbooks)
Qualitative sociology, quantitative sociology, … (Category:Qualitative sociology, Category:Quantitative sociology)


It looks like you've put a lot of work into this system but judging by the number of red links it will require a huge amount of work to get it off the ground. Maybe we should just start with the Branches of Sociology category created by zzuuzz and see what's left. Are we going to talk about what get's moved or just used common sense? For instance things like Strucutral Functionalism obivously belong in Branches. Are we right to just go ahead and move them? JenLouise 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually seeing as I am not sure exactly how to change categories, I've begun creating a list on the Category talk:Sociology page of all the changes I think need to be made. Perhaps someone who knows how to go about changing categories can move the ones they agree with. JenLouise 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In the process of doing that, I came up with a few suggestions for categories. Perhaps we should continue this discussion on the actual Category talk:Sociology page. I have started a discussion there. JenLouise 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that Category talk:Sociology would be the better place for this discussion. Note that renaming, mergers and deletions of categories are done through WP:CFD. Recategorizing an exisiting article or category is much easier, you just edit the article or cat and replace/add new cats.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent collaboration, socio-people! I've added a special category in concord with WP:1's recommended procedure, WikiProject Sociology. I've also added a subpages - WikiProject Sociology/Organization and WikiProject Sociology/Assessment. Those pages coincide with Sociology articles by importance and Sociology articles by quality, respectively and are automatically filled via Template:WikiProject Sociology. You can drop the template onto the top of the talk page of any sociology article using {{WikiProject Sociology}}. With no parameters, the Talk page will show up in Unknown-importance sociology articles and Unassessed Sociology articles. That gets the assessment ball rolling. Ive seeded the system with Sociology, Role, List of sociology topics, and Affinity. In a few hours a bot will come through and build a table at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Sociology_articles_by_quality if everything goes right. We can talk more about this at the WikiProject. Thanks for the hard work, all! • CQ 07:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Sociology

Shortcut:
WP:CBTF

WikiProject Sociology is in the process of re-activation and has plans in the making. If you have knowledge and interest in Sociology and related topics, please consider joining the project. Thanks in advance. - CQ 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scientific sociology

please post a more definite discussion regarding scientific sociology, its history, and implications....!!!!! please e-mail me @ dodslexrudval @yahoo.com

[edit] See Also list

I don't think the See Also list should be comprised of articles about the different sociological associations. If people want a list to be accesible from this page they should create a List of page and link that page. JenLouise 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The external links list is a little out of control, particularly as the wikiversity link exists. Could do with some pruning from an expert. StopItTidyUp 21:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name

I have a reference[1] that claims that Pareto was the source of the name "sociology":

To the synthesis of all specialized researches dealing with the study of human society, Pareto gave the name "sociology" (Pareto, 1935, I, 3).

This is at the bottom of page 2. The work Tarascio references is "The Mind and Society", translated and edited by A. Livingston.

Does anyone have information to back up or to discredit the theory? The article credits "Auguste Comte in 1838". I'd like a reference on that, if possible. Surely that would be earlier than Pareto -- although note that 1935 is the date of the translation, not the original.

[1] Vincent J. Tarascio, "Paretian welfare theory: some neglected aspects", The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 77, No. 1. (1969), pp. 1–20.

CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Print search for 'Comte coined sociology' has quite a few hits confirming Comte's claim, but going through them actually shows there is quite a lot of confusion. For example, years vary quite a lot. 1838: [1], [2]. 1822 [3], 1839 [4], 1830 [5], and I saw another one for 1840s :) The most popular date seems to be 1838, but I'd advise adding a note explaining accademic sources themself are confusing about the date, and as you point out, person - unless we can find a publication dealing exactly with the origin of that word that would explain how the confusion originated :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, so it's widely believed that Comte coined the name. (That doesn't mean it's true, of course.) I'm going to try this from another angle and try to find the earliest uses of the word itself. I'll note any progress here. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The first to coin the word "sociology" was Sieyès, then Comte. See entry in French wikipedia. -- Typewritten 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:ASR, academic publications like notable are more reliable then other Wikipedias: it is likely that whatever fr wiki sais, it's an unreferenced speculation (error).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The reference is there. A pamphlet by Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès titled Qu'est-ce que le tiers état? (from 1788-1789). But the Auguste Comte version is still considered as the official version for all manuals, including French. Sieyès was the first to use it... but not really the one to "coin" it, though. -- Typewritten 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading

Is there any reading that anybody would recommend for someone taking their first sociology course? I'm feeling a bit overwhemled with all the available lists.Help!?Alped'huez 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your average coursebook is usually a good start. Rest depends on what're your interests.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Depends on what you want to do... sociology is too broad to recommend one thing to read. I've seen a lot of bad coursebooks and known a lot of bad sociology professors. Doing well in your course is a goal quite different from actually understanding human social behavior. What sociology has been is different from what it is today, and what I hope it will be in the future. But Wallace and Wolf's Contemporary Sociology will give you background. If you want to get other perspectives look to psychology and microeconomics. A Steven Pinker book perhaps.

RedHouse18

[edit] Goal of Article

I think this article should focus on the type of sociology that makes up the contents of the top journals in sociology, ie. American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology. This suggests a number of changes. Do those of you familiar with these journals agree? RedHouse18 19:10, 18 September 2006

Can you spot any bias in your selection? What changes do you think are suggested? -- Martin Jensen 03:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only read a couple of articles from those journals, but (apart from the fact that they are both American, and sociology is wider than just one country) i don't think the article should be about any particular sociological issues but should introduce sociology in general, as a way of challenging common sense views of the world, and seeking to uncover, either at the individual/agency or society/structural level (or combination) how/why things happen. It should then go on to sumarise the major branches and major theorists, as well as highlighting some of the major debates, such as structure/agency, etc. And then I would make the main link be to the sociology category page where they can see the major subcategories, etc. JenLouise 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Jen. This should be the basic encyclopedic intro to sociology, we can discuss more academic approaches in further subarticles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never actually read this article before. I thought that considering it was the central article for sociology that it would be of a pretty high standard, but I'm not so sure any more. I have a number of issues with the current content, and even more issues regarding what is not covered:

  • the suffix is actually -ology not -logy, and therefore the stem is soci as in socius
  • The sentence One useful way to describe the discipline is as a cluster of sub-fields that examine different dimensions of society is a very bad description of sociology. Certainly demography and crimiology are not sub-fields or sociology, they are discplines in their own right.
  • Putting The word sociology was coined by Auguste Comte in 1838 from Latin Socius (companion, associate) and Greek lógos (speech) contradicts what is said earlier. (I'll leave out my own personal opinion of this claim)
  • Social theory is not a subfield of sociology, it is cross-displinary area that draws from many discplines. It might be useful to mention the distinction between sociology and social theory, but I don't think it deserves 1/5th of the article.
  • I have no idea what the heaidng science and mathematics has to do with the content underneath it.
  • Sentence does not make sense There are several main methods that sociologists use to gather empirical evidence, which include questionnaires or Sociological methods survey research, interviews, participant observation, statistical research evaluation research and assessment, .
  • The see also section lacks any sort of logic and the external links doesn't really link to anywhere that will hlep someone who wants to find out more about what sociology is. At least not the 7.
  • Furthermore the sociological perspective is not even mentioned, and neither are the main sociological paradigms and there corresponding theorists or the many branches of sociology.

Having just spent many months trying to reorganise the marxism page, I don't have the time to help with this page right at the moment, but I would suggest starting to discuss a new structure for the article, beginning from scratch (just ideas of headings, etc) and then fitting whatever of the current content is appropriate into the new structure. You then visit the main articles for each of the topics and draw content from them for this article. See my suggestion below as an example of the new strucutre of the article. Obviously the list is just a starting point for debate, but I think this would be the easiest way to recreate this as a logical and structured article.JenLouise 23:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should represent sociology across the world. If it differs significantly then that should be noted. Unfortunately, I am unqualified to write much about sociology outside the U.S.

I named those two journals because they are probably the two most cited journals by American sociologists. I have been told that publishing in these journals is the surest route to a professorship at an American research university. Though reviewing highly cited journals are a pretty good way to identify scholarship that is currently considered important, I agree that it misses other important scholarship that for one reason or more likely to be published in a book. One way to count work not represented in top journals but still widely respected would be to review the vita of sociologists at highly regarded research universities, inside and outside the country. This would take a lot of work and we're unlikely to do this in an organized fashion but I'm curious to know whether y'all think that such a project would be a good way to determine what modern sociology is. See my comments below regarding the proposed new structure. RedHouse18 13:10, 29 September 2006

[edit] New structure of article

The following is to start discussion on a possible new structure for article:

  • Sociology and the social sciences
  • Sociological perspective
  • History of sociology
  • Classical sociologists
    • Durkheim
    • Weber
    • Marx
  • Sociological paradigms
    • Functionalism
    • Conflict theory
    • Symbolic Interactionism
    • etc
  • Major sociological themes
    • Power
    • Structure vs. agency
    • Class
    • etc
  • Modern sociological theorists
    • whoever

I agree with the person that proposed this structure -- but she/he forgot to sign. By the way, what is this "science and mathematics" section title? Most weird. -- Typewritten 15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think everything listed above should be included in some way but I would suggest a few changes in emphasis.
  • I don't think there is any consensus about what a "sociological perspective" is. Therefore I don't think it is deserving of its own subtopic.
  • I think that the classical sociologists can be described within the "History of Sociology."
  • This would allow more emphasis on what modern sociologists do at well regarded research universities. See my comment up one topic.
  • I think we definitely need a category about methodology, probably with multiple subcategories.

RedHouse18 13:10, 29 September 2006

[edit] Organization

I can think of three major ways to classify sociological research, substantive topic, theoretical perspective, and methodological approach. Perhaps these three classifications may help organize the article. It is important to acknowledge though, that there are plenty of examples of work that is "none of the above" or "more than one." What do people think? RedHouse18 19:10, 18 September 2006

[edit] Theories

Wallace and Wolf are certainly not the final word but they distinguish between the following major theoretical perspectives: 1. Functionalism 2. Conflict Theory 3. Symbolic Interactionism 4. Phenomenology 5. Rational Choice RedHouse18 19:10, 18 September 2006

They include functionalism but not marxism? Very odd. JenLouise 12:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd assume that marxism is distilled to conflict theory...?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Do they distinguish them as the major theoretical perspectives of sociology, or of social science/social theory in general? Because phenemenology and rational choice don't strike me as sociological, I've always thought they belonged more to philosophy and economics respectively. JenLouise 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This is just one popular text but yes, these are the major categories in "Contemporary Sociological Theory" 4th ed. Marxism is include under conflict theory along with habermas, coser, dahrendorf, bourdieu, collins, etc. Though phenomenological and rational choice perspectives may be best represented in other disciplines I think they should be included to the extent that modern sociologists subscribe to them or are in dialog with them. Both of these perspectives have become more popular in the last 20 years which is a trend that might be noted. RedHouse18 14:10, 29 September 2006
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Talk%7ESociology_a7f0.html"