The issue with labels

I believe Foucault has a very optimistic approach to solving the label issue. It seems he does not believe in labels and without labels there would be no way to negatively define others. It is very dangerous when defining oneself. If people could be who they are and there was no “policing” of idea the world would be a happier place. But there are norm, which creates a very sticky situation when trying to define oneself. Labeling is a very dangerous part of our society. It can cause people to be tracked and make individuals believe in traits that are truly not their own. Or, even feel as though one trait is the only characteristic that others see. There is definitely the ability to control with words. It is not the words that are the issues; it is the personal views that then in turn do not give validity to an individual. People need to be more accepting of different people to allow labels to hold less value in society. Are there certain traits that you see in others where your personal definition of those words creates a negative view of that person? Sexuality, race and gender terms are very controversial in today’s society. Acceptance of certain words varies to different people. Trying to define individuals through these traits are very difficult. Foucault warns us of these dangers and how people become oppressed by societal norms but even more so when looking at sexual norms. Do you agree with Foucault?

Harvey, Park, Simmel and Urban Communities

As a born and raised Manhattanite, the pieces from Simmel, Park, and Harvery all struck a familiar chord with me. What I found interesting were their similarities and differences when it came to their opinions of urban communities. Harvey was adamant in his approach to point out the capitalistic qualities of cities and their dependency on a “coalition of class forces" (pg. 229). Park favored the size of urban communities, citing it was beneficial to the inhabitants in various sorts of ways. Simmel quite overtly displayed keenness to metropolitan people, stating that their "intellectualistic quality" gave them a leg up against "that of the small town which rests more on feelings and emotional relationships" (pg. 325-6).
Personally, I agreed with much of what the authors said in terms of how urban communities function. People seem to be driven by capital, and the number of different types of people in a city tend to blur the racial and ethnic differences but push them rather into classification based on earning power. This is just a little bit of what I've observed as a New Yorker and studying sociologist.

W.E.B. du Bois

Since we are reading some du Bois for today, I thought I would point you in the direction of this blog by Amy Hillier at UPenn. Hillier is less interested in du Bois as a theorist than as an empirical sociologist, who sought to map the social structure of African Americans living in areas of Philadelphia during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Take a look!

A Different Definition for a Paradigm Shift

I thought it was very interesting the way that Abbot analyzes Kuhn's definition of a paradigm shift in this weeks reading Methods of Discovery. In chapter three, on page 89 is where I'm talking about. He gives an example of a paradigm in the 2nd paragraph, "it means tearing the old building down and building a new one with the leftovers, the anomolies, and some new materials". so not only can one build off of old studies, but the mistakes and errors can be used to build new ideas as well. This is what he describes as a paradigm shift. I know that i was very confused on what a paradigm meant, but i think that this definition and the rest of the page really helps interpret the meaning in a much easier way than the other readings have done for me.

Owning a prius as conspicuous consumption

Here is the link to the article about owning a Prius that I mentioned last night. Enjoy!

car stereotypes

I found this article about cars and I thought it went well with our discussion of stereotypes that are associated with cars. Take a look and see if you have some of the same stereotypes.

The Smurfs

Ever heard about this rumor?

(randomm)

I now notice everytime someone uses the term "paradigm" and I thought this was funny. Not only because Madonna uses the term but also because I think she may actually use it correctly.

"The paradigm in the music business h as shifed and as an artist and business woman, I have to move with that shift." - In reaction to her new $120 million deal to work with Live Nation.

Thought it was cute. Enjoy!

After reading the Social Theory reader about Marx, there was a reference to animals and laborers and human beings as laborers that I found to be somewhat innaccurate. In the last section, "Marx: Economic and Philosphical Manuscripts", it was written that "they [animals] produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce one-sidedly, while man produces universally..." It continues, but I don't think that claim holds true. Animals produce for us, and it may sound silly, but they don't know they are doing us favors by providing for us food, clothing, and even comfort (in pets, etc.) Therefore, in the modern world, would Marx's theories have to be re-examined? To fit with modern times and the way that humans now see much more importance in animals. They are used as testing for medicines, vaccines, etc. That was never done before, but we must think of those things now-a-days.

My Drawing of a Paradigm

This is my idea of what a "paradigm" map looks like. I think if you click on it the image will open up as a bigger picture. Also, the new "paradigm" could also be considered a paradigm shift. Although Kuhn argued that it is not linear I think the way he described it is.

The necessity of sociology

What did everyone think about the notion that there will eventually be no need for sociology (as discussed in Wolfe's piece last class)? In class, I expressed my view that society will never be able to go "unstudied," and that a subject as diverse and fascinating as human society will always demand its own discipline in order to examine it. I was just wondering what everyone else thought about this, especially those of you who are senior sociology majors and will be looking for jobs soon.

Wolfe on the professionalization of sociologists

I promised to give you all a page number for where Wolfe talks about how social scientists emulated the natural science model to raise their professional status. On page 48, Wolfe writes:

The scientific model may not, finally, have taught all that much about social reality, but it did deal extremely well with the reality of who social scientists were and what they aspired to be. Its set of rules for professional behavior enables its practitioners to resolve some exceptionally awkward questions about what social scientists, as opposed to social science, ought to do. Social scientists could attempt to be objective, even if social science could not. Social scientists could follow well-known rules, even if reality did not.

Enjoy!

theories vs. paradigms

After last weeks discussion about paradigms versus theories I am still confused as to why authors of Sociology textbooks are mixing up these terms. As I stated last class, in my Methods textbook the author referred to theories as paradigms. When I was reading about the founding fathers of Sociology in an introductory textbook I found that theories were again referred to as paradigms. Are we mistaken or are the authors of these textbooks? Why do some authors call these concepts theories and others call them paradigms?

responce paper

hey,

do u guys know if were are susposed to post the responce papers or just email them?

Images of Kuhn

After class, a student mentioned others ways to represent pictorially Kuhn's sense of the relationship between "paradigms." Here's one image from Wikipedia, which compares Kuhn to Karl Popper and Feyerabend. Want to draw your own?

Howard Becker's famous "pot piece"

In class on Tuesday, I mentioned Howard Becker's famous piece on how people learn to smoke pot (or whatever one calls it these days). If you are on the Trinity network, you can access this article here. I've also linked it in the right-hand sidebar of this page, along with other articles I have mentioned in class. In this piece, Becker writes:

...being high consists of two elements: the presence of symptoms caused by marihuana use and the recognition of these symptoms and their connection by the user with his use of the drug. It is not enough, that is, that the effects be present; they alone do not automatically provide the experience of being high. The user must be able to point them out to himself and consciously connect them with his having smoke marihauna before he can have this experience (pg 237 - 238).

How might you connect this comment to what we are doing in the class?

First Post

This is my first post. After doing my reaction paper this week, and reading Kuhn's book, the comparison between our Senior Seminar readings and Social Theory readings was very clear to me. I found a lot of similarities between some of the pieces, but the overlay helped me in analyzing Kuhn's piece. Did anyone else find these similarities?