sociology final

Durkheim *On Suicide*

holism: the whole is irreducible to the sum of its parts, structural functionalism, can analyze suicide as a social fact, a consequence of the rupture of social ties, influenced and explained by social structures

Goffman’s “Embarrassment and Social Organization”

symbolic interactionism: the study of relations, actors agree on interactional roles and adopt relevant behaviors

→ embarrassment occurs when the social role one claims is not validated by others, not a deviant but serves a purpose within the interaction

Marx’s *The Class Struggle in France, 1848-1850* and *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte*

historical materialism: class struggle as the engine of history, material conditions and interactions dvp from this economic struggle

→ class in itself vs for itself, farmers were not a class for themselves and supported Louis Bonaparte

Bourdieu’s *Distinction*, “A Social Critique on the Judgment of Taste”

4 types of capital, and their 3 dimensions, which reproduce inequalities, one’s habits dictates their capital endowment and future reproduction, this reproduction takes place in the context of a class struggle

Hamilton’s “More is More or More is Less? Parental Financial Investments during College”

deriving from moral hazard theory: parental aid provides an educational disincentive, children put in more effort when they personally feel the costs of poor performance

→ parental aid = lower GPA, higher chance of degree completion

Préteceille’s “Has Ethno-Racial Segregation Increased in the Greater Paris Metropolitan Area?”

previous research on socio-economic segregation, tension for immigrants between social ties & ethnic enclaves vs needing to integrate socially

Geertz’s “Religion as a Cultural System”

culture: historically transmitted patterns of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions which dvps knowledge/attitudes toward life

religion is


1. a set of symbols (models for processes, prescriptions, vs models of processes, descriptions)
2. which establishes powerful, pervasive & long-lasting moods and motivations
3. by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence
4. and clothing these conceptions with an aura of factuality
5. that the moods & motivations seem uniquely realistic

religion not only describes the social order but shapes it

Lévi-Strauss’ *Man, Culture and Society*: “Chapter XII: The Family”

family: a social group, originating in marriage & children born in wedlock, united by legal/economic/religious bonds, sexual rights/prohibitions, is a universal phenomenon

2 main principles:


1. gendered division of labor, creating mutual dependencies between couple
2. incest prohibition, creating continuous dependencies between 2 clans


1. marriage is presenting a woman to another man as a gift, real purpose is not to gain a wife but to gain brothers-in-law

Weber’s *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*

the Protestant ethic: rational Christian asceticism (severe self discipline) and worldly activity (hard work as a sacred task of the highest moral value) to counteract feelings of religious anxiety, along w/ belief in predestination, dvped the spirit of capitalism and led to homo economicus

Vaughan’s “The Trickle-Down Effect: Policy Decisions, Risky Work and the Challenger Tragedy”

institutional culture changed (from og technical culture to mix of political/bureaucratic accountability), normalization of deviance, weak, routine & mixed signals

Lamont’s “How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: the case of Jacques Derrida'“

legitimation of interpretative theories comes not from their intrinsic value, but their context: cultural/institutonal systems (e.g. his work was a cultural good for French upper middle class)

3 stages of dvpment of modern education

1. origins (1763-1940): economic modernization and the protestant reform, some state laws on compulsory primary education, elitist models beyond this, emphasis on “state loyalty”
2. massification of schooling (1940-1973): economic growth, more inclusive policies and compulsory education, how to handle increased heterogeneity of the student pop and challenge of social mobility (school systems can reproduce social inequalities)


1. rationalization turn (1974-): globalization and competition in the knowledge economy, mass expansion in higher education, education pays = occupational attainment

Boudon on education/social opportunity

decreasing inequality of educational opportunity does not entail decreasing inequality of social opportunity

→ Anderson’s paradox: higher education doesn’t necessarily increase social mobility

→ aggregation effect: more ppl have access to diplomas, their value decreases

credentialism

valorization of diplomas / qualifications (meritocratic)

social closure theories

valorization of education as an economic and strategic competition (strategies lead to salaries, not to competences)

urban sociology

spatial dimension of social facts, interactions in urban spaces (eg in Western cities, cooperative mobility, civil inattention, restrained helpfulness, audience role prominence, civility towards diversity) th

the Chicago school

born early 20th ce, foundation of urban sociology and urban segregation, as Chicago pop increased greatly: are ethnic enclaves good or bad, will it cause economic inequality?

Burgess’ concentric zone model to describe American cities

cities expand as people move away from the inner city towards places w/ higher standards of living

→ used to represent comeback of suburbs during gentrification in the 70s

urban political economy

focus on interactions/complementarity between political & economic institutions which produce the city, eg. what causes urbanization, who governs the city, and how are they linked?

culture of poverty and the neighborhood effect

structural racism reproduces racial segregation, by living in a certain neighborhood black ppl are deprived of opportunities to socialize and lack connections necessary for social mobility

→ should link the black ghetto w/ prison system & inaccessible labor market

gentrification debates

working class areas gradually “colonized” by new middle class inhabitants, local social upgrading

→ rent-gap theory, building is renovated and rented for higher cost, driven by capital

→ is gentrification a Western-centric conceptualization?

4 types of resounded neighborhoods (Cousin)

1. traditional bourgeois neighborhoods: vintage homes, accumulation of symbolic capital through this preserved space, perpetuates bourgeois class consciousness
2. gentrified neighborhoods: rehabilitated collective buildings, middle class w/ predominantly cultural capital
3. refunded neighborhoods: new collective buildings in business centers, private execs / salaried upper classes w/ predominantly economic capital, reinvests (and erases) the past
4. suburban secession: new individual houses, middle class, sequential order

Comte on religion as a premodern stage of society

normative: religion as an initial mistake (lacking empirical knowledge) but still an institution which stablized and organized society, simply in a premodern way which was inegalitarian

Tocqueville on American religion & religiosity

congregationalist: decisions made by whole religious community, this organization fostered equality and liberty = religion was one of the causes of democracy in the US

→ stabilized society, fostered collective trust as well as individual responsibility

Frazer’s mythogenetical approach

observed that many narratives of Christianity were similar to other religions (self-sacrifice, sensual saving figure), first to challenge idea that the Christian narrative was a relevation, instead it is simply a peculiar version of a common myth told in many other civilizations

how do contemporary social sciences analyze the history of religion?

as a mix of collective memorization, iterative reinterpretation, and symbolic structuration (Lévi-Strauss: can’t change inspect of system w/o readjusting entire thing)

Marx and Engels: religion as a superstructure of material dialectic

religion serves a soothing function in a system of capitalist exploitation, “the opium of the people”

→ dialectical materialism = historical materialism (social conflict caused by material needs)

Durkheim on religion

the real religious experience is subjective transcendence and immanence, in which rituals/collective effervescence plays a key role; religion is a way to implement norms and social ties

Weber extramundane vs intramundane religions

extramundane: produce a mystic ethos (self-surrender to God, spiritual truths)

intramundane (protestantism): promote an ascetic ethos (self-discipline, abstention from indulgence)

religiosity

non-normative, what people actually do (in religions) and the consequences on their life

Descola’s 4 ontologies to describe how humans relate to nature

1. animism: same interiority, different physicality
2. totemism: same interiority, same physicality
3. naturalism: same physicality, different interiority
4. analogies: different interiority, different physicality

several dimensions of secularization

social/political/legal institutions gain autonomy, social representatives (eg perception of love) gain autonomy, individualization of religious/spiritual beliefs and practices

Bellah’s “civil religion”

a more secularized version of religion is still everywhere, certain common elements of religious orientation that most Americans share, sets of beliefs/symbols

family as a social institution

a group of individuals related to each other by ties of kinship (who are parents/children) and alliance (who can/should marry whom), whose definition varies across societies

Lévi-Strauss on social rules governing alliance norms

prohibition of incest (but not as universal as he thinks) marking the passage from state of nature to state of culture, establishes mutual dependency between families and creates new ones = a strategy of social reproduction

elementary to complex structures of kinship, defining who you should to who you cannot marry

Lévi-Strauss on social rules governing kinship/descent

generally ambilineality = mix of patrilineal or matrilineal descent, acts as an incentive to respect the rules of exogamy (marrying outside the community, gain more as more lines of descent)

Lévi-Strauss on traditional functions of the family

social ties: prohibiting incest establishes ties between social groups; reproduces social inequalities

the family as an institution in France

changing social value of children: from economics to affection (parents used to postpone attachment to younger kids due to chance of death), family refocused and reentered its role as an institution of education and socialization, today as a means to fulfill individual happiness, love-based marriage, individualization

Bozon & Heran: the marketization of meeting people

assess value of each other financially, physically, emotionally, socially

→ education has elevated role, couples of similar backgrounds makes for a more egalitarian couple but a more socially segregated society

→ in the past, it was possible for a woman to have upper mobility through marriage, but not anymore

Rubin: family as a nexus for women’s oppression

what Lévi-Strauss’ conception (gendered division of labor eg) implies for women: social organizations rests upon gender, obligatory heterosexuality, and the constraint of female sexuality

how does family reproduce social inequality (Bourdieu)

transmission of different forms of patrimony, assets and capitals

→ some families are more adjusted to institutions than others

how does family reproduce social inequality (Laureau)

the role of socialization: working class vs middle/upper class

* working class natural growth: children grow naturally w/ authority (discipline), children gain distrust/constraint in institutional experience
* middle/upper class concerted cultivation: adults organize leisure actives, enhance competences, children gain a sense of entitlement in institutional experiences

capitalism

a market based economic system, based on private ownership of the means of production, and strategies of capital accumulation (profit for the sake of profit)

→ a historical system dependent upon specific social conditions

Braudel on capitalism

market economy preceded capitalism (they existed in the Middle Ages simply w/o accumulation of capital), colonialism fostered capitalism

3 movements in the dvpment of industrial capitalism

1. extensive phase: mechanization of labor, some peasants moved to cities
2. intensive phase: specialization of labor, working class became consumers, dvp of marxist/socialist ideology
3. fragmented phase: post-industrial capitalism, more service jobs, delocalization & globalization, less favorable to workers

Marx and Engels on capitalism

capital is the main factor of production, a relation of exploitation through surplus value appropriation, a system designed to collapse and be replaced through a proletariat revolution with communism

Durkheim on industrialization and the rise of capitalism

w/ industrialization, division of labor, change from mechanical to organic solidarity

* mechanical solidarity: low differentiation/individualization, solidarity based on collective consciousness
* organic solidarity: differentiation/individualization, solidarity based on functional complementarity (everyone fills a role in the division of labor)

Weber on capitalism

first economic system entirely organized by rationalized pursuit of profit, protestant ethic values, from this religious impulse to a self-sustained system

Polanyi’s great transformation

19 ce england, decline of political/religious authorities over the market, defines capitalism as instead of the economy embedded in society, society’s relationships are now embedded in the economic system

Granovetter’s “new economic sociology”

criticized sociologists’ reluctance to study modern markets; argued all economies are embedded, not only pre-capitalist ones

Fligstein’s organization theory

4 successive dominants of capitalist control


1. direct control (those who own the corporation direct it)
2. manufacturing
3. sales/marketing
4. finance

→ this work organization influences the market

the state

affirmation of a sovereign political authority on a delimited area

→ not universal, in the Occident appeared \~end of 15 ce w/ crisis of feudal system

→ exists acts through people = agents of the state

Weber on the power of the state

generally, we obey the state because we consider its power legitimate, legal-rational domination

Weber on bureaucracy

bureaucracy has authority as it was delegated by the state, rational and impersonal hierarchy, legal-rational domination as bureaucrats have specialized technical expertise and are recruited based on formal qualifications

Silberman’s national differences between bureaucracies

* France and Japan: well defined organizational boundaries, meritocratic and autonomous from political competition
* US and UK: permeable organizational boundaries, dvp within large/stable political parties, change in composition of bureaucracy w/ change in party

Crozier’s dysfunction of bureaucracies

bureaucratic vicious circle: rules can’t anticipate all situations causing more rules to be made in an attempt to control uncertainty, inflation of rules, constant complexification of organization = inefficiency/counterproductivity

Foucault biopower

power of the state over natural dimensions of life, e.g. opponents of euthanasia could say its a biopower

Esping Anderson’s 4 types of welfare capitalism

different ways in which family/market/state interact


1. liberal regimes: US/UK, strong reliance on markets, limited social aid
2. familiarist regimes: Italy/Spain, access to aid based on family structure, importance of family solidarity as adult children take care of parents
3. corporatist-status regimes: France/Germany, access to aid depends on position in division of labor (eg pension depends on job)
4. social democratic regimes: maj. of Nordic countries, higher taxes for everybody, state investment in aid → human capital

Lipsky’s street level bureaucracy

public service workers who interact directly w/ citizens in the course of their jobs, and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work, mediate aspects of relationship between citizens and the state

→ eg judges, police, social workers, nurses

→ discretion: have to treat everyone the same way but requires responsiveness to individuals

→ tension between ideal conception (commitment to public service) and reality of being a SLB (huge caseloads of distressed clients)

what is the fourth estate?

the press, from the freedom of speech to the freedom of press, autonomous journalistic field in the US due to competition/laws protecting journalism from political restrictions, however persistence of censorship around the world

Sapiro’s 3 different comparisons of (French) intellectuals)

1. generalist vs specialized: large areas or expertise area
2. autonomy vs heteronomy: working for themselves or an organization
3. dominant vs dominated (= legitimate vs illegitimate): is their work majority accepted or minority discourse

sociology of mass media history

1950s: scared of the power of growing mass media, however some argued it should help democracy by disseminating ideas, but used as propaganda during WWII

1960s: different conceptions of autonomy of media from elite power, influence of media vs audience’s agency

1980s: rise of globalization but agency of audience remained

Lazarsfeld and Katz on mass communication

undermining the idea of communication as a direct process, ppl rarely change their mind from media but rather through interacting w/ people they trust

→ more efficient to integrate messages into something ppl are already interested in, and use individuals as intermediaries of communication

the media as an instance of socialization

perceiving the world through the news, fiction helps deploy morals, however can create alternate realities (Fox News is entertaining but misinforms people)