Tuesday, January 1, 2013

QN: Sociological theories

QN: Sociological theories


SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Introduction

Sociologists develop theories to explain social phenomena. A theory is a proposed relationship between two or more concepts. In other words, a theory is explanation for why a phenomenon occurs. An example of a sociological theory is the work of Robert Putnam on the decline of civic engagement. Putnam found that Americans involvement in civic life (e.g., community organizations, clubs, voting, religious participation, etc.) has declined over the last 40 to 60 years. While there are a number of factors that contribute to this decline (Putnam's theory is quite complex), one of the prominent factors is the increased consumption of television as a form entertainment. Putnam's theory proposes: he more television people watch, the lower their involvement in civic life will be.

Importance of Theory

In the theory proposed above, the astute reader will notice that the theory includes two components: The data, in this case the findings that civic engagement has declined and TV watching has increased, and the proposed relationship, that the increase in television viewing has contributed to the decline in civic engagement. Data alone are not particularly informative. If Putnam had not proposed a relationship between the two elements of social life, we may not have realized that television viewing does, in fact, reduce people's desire to and time for participating in civic life. In order to understand the social world around us, it is necessary to employ theory to draw the connections between seemingly disparate concepts.
Another example of sociological theorizing illustrates this point. In his now classic work, Suicide, Emile Durkheim was interested in explaining a social phenomenon, suicide, and employed both data and theory to offer an explanation. By aggregating data for large groups of people in Europe, Durkheim was able to discern patterns in suicide rates and connect those patterns with another concept (or variable): religious affiliation. Durkheim found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than were Catholics. At this point, Durkheim's analysis was still in the data stage; he had not proposed an explanation for the different suicide rates of the two groups. It was when Durkheim introduced the ideas of anomie and social solidarity that he began to explain the difference in suicide rates. Durkheim argued that the looser social ties found in Protestant religions lead to weaker social cohesion and reduced social solidarity. The higher suicide rates were the result of weakening social bonds among Protestants.
While Durkheim's findings have since been criticized, his study is a classic example of the use of theory to explain the relationship between two concepts. Durkheim's work also illustrates the importance of theory: without theories to explain the relationship between concepts, we would not be able to understand cause and effect relationships in social life. And to find the cause and effect relationship is the major component of the sociological theory.
STRUCTURE FUNCTIONALISM
Structural Functionalism is a sociological theory that attempts to explain why society functions the way it does by focusing on the relationships between the various social institutions that make up society (e.g., government, law, education, religion,etc).
Structural Functionalism is a theoretical understanding of society that posits social systems are collective means to fill social needs. In order for social life to survive and develop in society there are a number of activities that need to be carried out to ensure that certain needs are fulfilled. In the structural functionalist model, individuals produce necessary goods and services in various institutions and roles that correlate with the norms of the society.
Thus, one of the key ideas in Structural Functionalism is that society is made-up of groups or institutions, which are cohesive, share common norms, and have a definitive culture. Robert K. Merton argued that functionalism is about the more static or concrete aspects of society, institutions like government or religions. However, any group large enough to be a social institution is included in Structural Functionalist thinking, from religious denominations to sports clubs and everything in between. Structural Functionalism asserts that the way society is organized is the most natural and efficient way for it to be organized.

History of Structural functionalism

Functionalism developed slowly over time with the help of many sociologists in different parts of the world. Perhaps the most significant contributors to the initial development of this theory are Émile Durkheim and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. However, we begin with Herbert Spencer.
Herbert Spencer, an English sociologist, was a forerunner of formalized Structural Functioanlism. He is best known for coining the phrase "survival of the fittest" in his book Principles of Sociology (1896). Spencer’s intention was to support a societal form of natural selection. One of the primary focii in Spencer's work was societal equilibrium. Spencer argued that there is a natural tendency in society towards equilibrium. Thus, even when the conditions of the society are altered, the resulting changes to the social structure will balance out, returning the society to equilibrium.
In the late 19th century French Sociologist Émile Durkheim laid the primary foundations of Structural Functionalism. Durkheim's theory was, at least in part, a response to evolutionary speculations of theorists such as E.B. Taylor. Durkheim originally wanted to explain social institutions as a shared way for individuals in society to meet their own biological needs. He wanted to understand the value of cultural and social traits by explaining them in regards to their contribution to the operation of the overall system of society and life. Later the focus for structural functionalism changed to be more about the ways that social institutions in society meet the social needs of individuals within that society.
Durkheim was interested in four main aspects of society: (1) why societies formed and what holds them together, (2) religion, (3) suicide, and (4) deviance and crime. Durkheim addressed his first focus in his book, The Division of Labor in Society. Durkheim noticed that the division of labor was evident across all societies and wanted to know why. Durkheim’s answer to this question can be found in his idea of "solidarity". In older, more primitive societies Durkheim argued that "mechanical solidarity kept everyone together. Mechanic Solidarity here refers to everyone doing relatively similar tasks. For instance, in hunting and gathering societies there was not a substantial division of labor; people hunted or gathered. Durkheim theorized that shared values, common symbols, and systems of exchange functioned as the tools of cohesion in these societies. In essence, members of society performed similar tasks to keep the community running. In more modern and complex societies individuals are quite different and they do not perform the same tasks. However, the diversity actually leads to a different form of solidarity - interdependence. Durkheim referred to this as "organic solidarity."Organic solidarity leads to a strong sense of individuals being dependent on one another. For instance, while a construction worker may be able to build homes for people, if he is injured on the job, he will turn to a doctor for treatment (and probably a lawyer to sue his employer). The division of labor in society requires specialization, and the result is organic solidarity.
Durkheim's work on suicide was also tied to structural functionalism. In his book, Suicide, Durkheim hypothesized that social relationships reduced the likelihood of suicide. By collecting data across large groups in Europe, Durkheim was able to distinguish patterns in suicide rates and connect those patterns with other variables.Throughout the book, Durkheim explained that the weaker social ties a society possessed the more likely they were to commit suicide. Inversely, the greater the cohesive bond between individuals the less likely one was to commit suicide. One concrete example Durkheim explored was the difference in solidarity between Protestants and Catholics. Due to a variety of factors, Durkheim argued that Protestants had lower social solidarity than Catholics, and their weaker bonds resulted in higher rates of suicide. Thus, solidarity helped maintain societal order.
Another thread in the development of Structural Functionalism comes from England, where it emerged from the study of anthropology in the early twentieth century in the theorizing of Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. Malinowski argued that cultural practices had physiological and psychological functions, such as the satisfaction of desires.
Radcliffe-Brown’s structural functionalism focused on social structure. He argued that the social world constituted a separate "level" of reality, distinct from those of biological forms (people) and inorganic forms. Radcliffe-Brown argued that explanations of social phenomena had to be constructed at the social level.To Radcliffe-Brown this meant that people were merely replaceable, temporary occupants of social roles, that were of no inherent worth. To Radcliffe-Brown, individuals were only significant in relation to their positions in the overall structure of social roles in society.
In the United States, functionalism was formalized in sociological thinking by Talcott Parsons, who introduced the idea that there are stable structural categories that make up the interdependent systems of a society and functioned to maintain society. He argued that this homeostasis is the critical characteristic of societies. Parsons supported individual integration into social structures, meaning that individuals should find how they fit into the different aspects of society on their own, rather than being assigned roles.
Parsons saw social systems as "a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the "optimization of gratification" and whose relation to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols.” The foundation of Parsons’ social system is the status-role complex, which consists of structural elements or positions that individuals hold in a system.
These positions are referred to as statuses and are occupied by individuals who must carry out the roles in order to maintain the order of the system. Therefore, within this social system individuals perform certain roles to fulfill the system’s functions; these roles are a function of their statuses. As society progresses there are new roles and statuses that occur, allowing individuals to express their unique personalities resulting in individualism.
Another important aspect of Parsons’ social systems argument is his theory of action. Parsons developed the theory of action based on the idea that the decision making of an individual in a social system has motivational significance to himself. The individual is constantly reminded of the norms and values of society, which binds him to society. The individual is, therefore, motivated to reach personal goals that are defined by their cultural system and simultaneously these goals benefit society as a whole.
Structural functionalism was the dominant approach of sociology between World War II and the Vietnam War.
In the 1960’s Structural Functionalism was quite popular and used extensively in research. It was “… perhaps the dominant theoretical orientation in sociology and anthropology”. However, by the 1970’s, it was no longer so widely credited. "Structural Functionalism has lost much importance, but modified it directs much sociological inquiry."http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sociological_Theory/Structural_Functionalism

Limitations

Structural-functionalism has been criticized for being unable to account for social change because it focuses so intently on social order and equilibrium in society. For instance, in the late 19th Century, higher education transitioned from a training center for clergy and the elite to a center for the conduct of science and the general education of the masses. In other words, education did not always serve the function of preparing individuals for the labor force (with the exception of the ministry and the elite). As structural-functionalism thinks about elements of social life in relation to their present function and not their past functions, structural-functionalism has a difficult time explaining why a function of some element of society might change or how such change occurs. However, structural-functionalism could, in fact, offer an explanation in this case. Also occurring in the 19th Century (though begun in the 18th) was the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution, facilitated by capitalism, was increasingly demanding technological advances to increase profit. Technological advances and advanced industry both required more educated workforces. Thus, as one aspect of society changed - the economy and production - it required a comparable change in the educational system, bringing social life back into equilibrium.
Another philosophical problem with the structural-functional approach is the ontological argument that society does not have needs as a human being does; and even if society does have needs they need not be met. The idea that society has needs like humans do is not a tenable position because society is only alive in the sense that it is made up of living individuals. Thus, society cannot have wants and/or needs like humans do. What's more, just because a society has some element in it at the present that does not mean that it must necessarily have that element. For instance, in the United Kingdom, religious service attendance has declined precipitously over the last 100 years. Today, less than 1 in 10 British attend religious service in a given week. Thus, while one might argue that religion has certain functions in British society, it is becoming apparent that it is not necessary for British society to function.
Another criticism often leveled at structural-functionalist theory is that it supports the status quo. According to some opponents, structural-functionalism paints conflict and challenge to the status quo as harmful to society, and therefore tends to be the prominent view among conservative thinkers.
NEO-FUNCTIONALISM
Neofunctionalism is a theory of regional integration, building on the work of Ernst B. Haas, an American political scientist and also Leon Lindberg, an American political scientist. Jean Monnet's approach to European integration, which aimed at integrating individual sectors in hopes of achieving spill-over effects to further the process of integration, is said to have followed the neofunctional school's tack. Haas later declared the theory of neofunctionalism obsolete, after the process of European integration started stalling in the 1960s, when Charles de Gaulle's "empty chair" politics paralyzed the institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community, European Economic Community, and European Atomic Energy Community. The theory was updated and further specified namely by Wayne Sandholtz, Alec Stone Sweet, and their collaborators in the 1990s and in 2000s (references below). The main contributions of these authors was an employment of empiricism.
Neofunctionalism describes and explains the process of regional integration with reference to how three causal factors interact with one another: (a) growing economic interdependence between nations, (b) organizational capacity to resolve disputes and build international legal regimes, and (c) supranational market rules that replace national regulatory regimes.
Early Neofunctionalist theory assumed a decline in importance of nationalism and the nation-state; it predicted that, gradually, elected officials, interest groups, and large commercial interests within states would see it in their interests to pursue welfarist objectives best satisfied by the political and market integration at a higher, supranational level. Haas theorized three mechanisms that he thought would drive the integration forward: positive spillover, the transfer of domestic allegiances and technocratic automaticity.
Positive spillover effect is the notion that integration between states in one economic sector will create strong incentives for integration in further sectors, in order to fully capture the perks of integration in the sector in which it started.
Increased number of transactions and intensity of negotiations then takes place hand in hand with increasing regional integration. This leads to a creation of institutions that work without reference to "local" governments.
The mechanism of a transfer in domestic allegiances can be best understood by first noting that an important assumption within neofunctionalist thinking is of a pluralistic society within the relevant nation states. Neofunctionalists claim that, as the process of integration gathers pace, interest groups and associations within the pluralistic societies of the individual nation states will transfer their allegiance away from national institutions towards the supranational European institutions. They will do this because they will, in theory, come to realise that these newly formed institutions are a better conduit through which to pursue their material interests than the pre-existing national institutions.
Greater regulatory complexity is then needed and other institutions on regional level are usually called for. This causes integration to be transferred to higher levels of decision-making processes.
Technocratic automaticity described the way in which, as integration proceeds, the supranational institutions set up to oversee that integration process will themselves take the lead in sponsoring further integration as they become more powerful and more autonomous of the member states. In the Haas-Schmitter model, size of unit, rate of transactions, pluralism, and elite complementarity are the background conditions on which the process of integration depends.
Just as Rosamond put it (Rosamond: Theories of European Integration), political integration will then become an "inevitable" side effect of integration in economic sectors.
Neofunctionalism was modified and updated in two important books that helped to revive the study of European integration: European Integration and Supranational Governance (1998), and The Institutionalization of Europe (2001). Wayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet describe and assess the evolution of Neofunctionalist theory and empirical research in their 2009 paper, Neo-functionalism and Supranational Governance.
FEMANISM THEORY
Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into theoretical, or philosophical discourse, it aims to understand the nature of gender inequality. It examines women's social roles and lived experience, and feminist politics in a variety of fields, such as anthropology and sociology, communication, psychoanalysis, economics, literary criticism, education, and philosophy. While generally providing a critique of social relations, much of feminist theory also focuses on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests, and issues. Themes explored in feminism include art history and contemporary art, aesthetics, discrimination, stereotyping, objectification (especially sexual objectification), oppression, and patriarchy.
"Feminism deconstructs established systems of knowledge by showing their masculine bias and the gender politics framing and informing them."  Feminism is also being "deconstructed" from within--varieties of experience are challenging the "established" perspective, and postmodernism is challenging the concepts of gender and self.http://www.dmacc.cc.ia.us/instructors/gdtitchener/Welcome_files/Therorists/bernard.jpg

History of Feminist theory

Feminist theories have emerged as early as 1792 (– 1920s) in such publications as “The Changing Woman”, “Ain’t I a Woman”, “Speech after Arrest for Illegal Voting”, and so on. “The Changing Woman” is a Navajo Myth that gave credit to a woman who, in the end, populated the world. Footnote with citation. In 1851, Sojourner Truth addressed women’s rights issues through her publication, “Ain’t I a Woman.” Sojourner Truth addressed the issues surrounding limited rights to women based on the flawed perceptions that men held of women. Truth argued that if a woman of color can perform tasks that were supposedly limited to men, then any woman of any color could perform those same tasks. After her arrest for illegally voting, Susan B. Anthony gave a speech within court in which she addressed the issues of language within the constitution documented in her publication, “Speech after Arrest for Illegal voting” in 1872. Anthony questioned the authoritative principles of the constitution and its male gendered language. She raised the question of why women should be punished under law but they cannot use the law for their own protection (women could not vote, own property, nor themselves in marriage). She also critiqued the constitution for its male gendered language and questioned why women should have to abide by laws that do not specify women. Although there were not any feminist terminologies based on their arguments, all of these women have founded a lexicon of debates that contribute to feminist theory. For example, Sojourner Truth raised the issue of the intersectionality debate and Susan B. Anthony raised the issue of the language debate.
Nancy Cott makes a distinction between modern feminism and its antecedents, particularly the struggle for suffrage. In the United States she places the turning point in the decades before and after women obtained the vote in 1920 (1910–1930). She argues that the prior woman movement was primarily about woman as a universal entity, whereas over this 20 year period it transformed itself into one primarily concerned with social differentiation, attentive to individuality and diversity. New issues dealt more with woman's condition as a social construct, gender identity, and relationships within and between genders. Politically this represented a shift from an ideological alignment comfortable with the right, to one more radically associated with the left.
Susan Kingsley Kent says that Freudian patriarchy was responsible for the diminished profile of feminism in the inter-war years, others such as Juliet Mitchell consider this to be overly simplistic since Freudian theory is not wholly incompatible with feminism. Some feminist scholarship shifted away from the need to establish the origins of family, and towards analyzing the process of patriarchy. In the immediate postwar period, Simone de Beauvoir stood in opposition to an image of "the woman in the home". De Beauvoir provided an existentialist dimension to feminism with the publication of Le Deuxième Sexe (The Second Sex) in 1949. As the title implies, the starting point is the implicit inferiority of women, and the first question de Beauvoir asks is "what is a woman"? Woman she realizes is always perceived of as "other", "she is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her". In this book and her essay, "Woman: Myth & Reality", de Beauvoir anticipates Betty Friedan in seeking to demythologise the male concept of woman. "A myth invented by men to confine women to their oppressed`state. For women it is not a question of asserting themselves as women, but of becoming full-scale human beings." "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman", or as Toril Moi puts it "a woman defines herself through the way she lives her embodied situation in the world, or in other words, through the way in which she makes something of what the world makes of her". Therefore, woman must regain subject, to escape her defined role as "other", as a Cartesian point of departure. In her examination of myth, she appears as one who does not accept any special privileges for women. Ironically, feminist philosophers have had to extract de Beauvoir herself from out of the shadow of Jean-Paul Sartre to fully appreciate her.While more philosopher and novelist than activist, she did sign one of the Mouvement de Libération des Femmes manifestos.
The resurgence of feminist activism in the late 1960s was accompanied by an emerging literature of what might be considered female associated issues, such as concerns for the earth and spirituality, and environmental activism. This in turn created an atmosphere conducive to reigniting the study of and debate on matricentricity, as a rejection of determinism, such as Adrienne Rich and Marilyn French while for socialist feminists like Evelyn Reed, patriarchy held the properties of capitalism.
Elaine Showalter describes the development of Feminist theory as having a number of phases. The first she calls "feminist critique" - where the feminist reader examines the ideologies behind literary phenomena. The second Showalter calls "Gynocritics" - where the "woman is producer of textual meaning" including "the psychodynamics of female creativity; linguistics and the problem of a female language; the trajectory of the individual or collective female literary career and literary history". The last phase she calls "gender theory" - where the "ideological inscription and the literary effects of the sex/gender system" are explored." This model has been criticized by Toril Moi who sees it as an essentialist and deterministic model for female subjectivity. She also criticized it for not taking account of the situation for women outside the west. From the 1970s onwards, psychoanalytical ideas that has been arising in the field of French feminism has gained a decisive influence on feminist theory. Feminist psychoanalysis deconstructed the phallic hypotheses regarding the Unconscious. Julia Kristeva, Bracha Ettinger and Luce Irigaray developed specific notions concerning unconscious sexual difference, the feminine and motherhood, with wide implications for film and literature analysis.
CONFLICT THEORY
According to Karl Marx in all stratified societies there are two major social groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class derives its power from its ownership and control of the forces of production. The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class. As a result there is a basic conflict of interest between the two classes. The various institutions of society such as the legal and political system are instruments of ruling class domination and serve to further its interests. Marx believed that western society developed through four main epochs-primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society and capitalist society.
Primitive communism is represented by the societies of pre-history and provides the only example of the classless society. From then all societies are divided into two major classes - master and slaves in ancient society, lords and serfs in feudal society and capitalist and wage labourers in capitalist society. Weber sees class in economic terms. He argues that classes develop in market economies in which individuals compete for economic gain. He defines a class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in market economy and by virtue of that fact receive similar economic rewards. Thus a person's class situation is basically his market situation. Those who share a similar class situation also share similar life chances. Their economic position will directly affect their chances of obtaining those things defined as desirable in their society. Weber argues that the major class division is between those who own the forces of production and those Conflict theories are perspectives in social science that emphasize the social, political or material inequality of a social group, that critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies.
Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.
Of the classical founders of social science, conflict theory is most commonly associated with Karl Marx (1818-1883). Based on a dialectical materialist account of history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction. Marx ushered in radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling classes.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Limitations

Not surprisingly, the primary limitation of the social-conflict perspective is that it overlooks the stability of societies. While societies are in a constant state of change, much of the change is minor. Many of the broader elements of societies remain remarkably stable over time, indicating the structural-functional perspective has a great deal of merit.
As noted above, sociological theory is often complementary. This is particularly true of structural-functionalism and social-conflict theories. Structural-functionalism focuses on equilibrium and solidarity; conflict-theory focuses on change and conflict. Keep in mind that neither is better than the other; when combined, the two approaches offer a broader and more comprehensive view of society.
KARL MARX’S EVOLUTION THEORY
When it comes to Marxism and Science, Karl Marx gives us the core of his theory, “Darwin’s [Origin of Species] is very important and provides me with the basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”
While Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were developing their communistic worldview, Charles Darwin was presenting his theory of evolution and creating quite a stir among the intellectuals of the nineteenth century. Many people perceived that Darwin’s theory could provide the foundation for an entirely materialistic perspective on life. Marx and Engels were among those who recognized the usefulness of Darwin’s theory as just such a foundation for their theory of dialectical materialism.

In a letter to Engels, Marx writes, “During . . . the past four weeks I have read all sorts of things. Among others Darwin’s work on Natural Selection. And though it is written in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.”

John Hoffman tells us that Marx so admired Darwin’s work that he “sent Darwin a complimentary copy of Volume I of Capital and tried unsuccessfully to dedicate Volume II to him.” Darwin’s wife insisted he not have any relationship with “that atheist,” (http://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxism-and-science.htm).
Evolution is a key term in Marxist theory and like Darwinism and Utopianism it partakes in the legacy of scientific and social thought of the nineteenth century. Some critics observe that, given the nature of the human species, Marx's thought is essentially Utopian. He believed, for example, that human beings (as opposed to other species) should not be burdened by one monotonous form of work, which (as automobile assembly-line workers will tell you) produces not a pride or satisfaction in their work, but rather a sense of alienation. Marx believed (many would say "idealistically") that a person could and should be something of a philosopher in the morning, a gardener in the afternoon, and perhaps a poet in the evenings. Whatever his utopian traits, Marx thought of himself as a social scientist, and his writings illuminate important aspects in the history of human societies, from pre-Christian times to the nature of capitalist society in nineteenth-century England, where his friend and collaborator Frederick Engels managed a factory and recorded documentary evidence on working class life. (Some of Engel's findings make the social ethos in Dickens's novels seem somewhat benign.)
Marx's "materialist conception of history" is based on the following premises: that human beings, in all historical eras, enter into certain productive relations (hunting and gathering food, the relation of lord and serf, the contract between labor and capitalãthat is, certain economic foundations) and that these relations give rise to a certain form of social consciousness. He maintained that: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. . . ." Perhaps Marx's greatest contribution to modern thought (as opposed to his economic theories which have been subject to various revisions) is his comprehensive investigation into the role of Ideology, or how social being determines consciousness, which results in certain (for the most part unconscious) belief and value systems depending on the particular economic infrastructure pertaining at the time. From a Marxian point of view all cultural artifactsãreligious systems, philosophical positions, ethical valuesãare, naturally enough, products of consciousness and as such are subject to these ideological pressures.
As far as literature is concerned, a Marxian analysis would attempt to look at the work as a highly mediated "reflection" of the social conditions (which are in turn subject to the particular economic structure) of its particular epoch. Good Marxist criticism addresses not only the content of a given text, but also its form. For example, one might argue that Pope's poetry "reflects" (betrays, illustrates, refracts) in its content the stable union of "a bourgeois class in alliance with a bourgeoisified aristocracy," and that its form, the circumscribed, balanced heroic couplet, underlines the equilibrium of such a social structure. To take an extreme contrary example, Eliot's The Waste Land: here the content relates to the spiritual bankruptcy and ennui brought about by the failures of Imperialist capitalism, the end result of which was the catastrophe of the First World War. The form of the poem is also historically determined as a consequence of its content: the fragmented vision of the poem demands new forms to give it expression. The important thing to remember is that neither Pope nor Eliot were consciously trying to mirror the economically determined social structure of their era, but each, a Marxist would argue, are trapped within the ideological confines of their time, (http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/phil2.html).
Evolutionary theory and the political left have had a complicated relationship with one another. The majority of those on the left do not oppose evolution per se, but are critical of interpretations of evolutionary theory that, in their view, overemphasize the role of competition and ignore elements of co-operation in nature such as symbiosis.
Many important political figures on the left have never publicized their views on biology, and so their opinions of evolutionary theory are unknown. To some extent, Marxists are the exception. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels spoke favorably of evolutionary theory, arguing that it mirrored their view of the progress of human society by class struggle and revolution. Most later Marxists agreed with them, but some - particularly those in the early Soviet Union - believed that evolutionary theory conflicted with their economic and social ideals. As a result, they came to support Lamarckism instead, which led to Lysenkoism and caused disastrous agricultural problems, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_theory_and_the_political_left).
Evolutionary influences are especially visible in Marxist legal theory. Because Marx rejected the God of Creation, he was deeply scornful of the doctrine of human sin, and convinced that the evolution of human nature would lead to its absolute perfection. Marx also believed that laws are always the product of human will and, more specifically, the arbitrary will of the ruling social class. He sought, therefore, to displace the ideal of the rule of law and create in its place his own secular utopia on earth. The result? In every communist regime around the world, the attempt to enforce the Marxist dream of equality of wealth has led to gross inequality of power and, to be sure, to governmental oppression and “deification” (not to mention equality of poverty among the masses). Thus, in the twentieth century alone, Marxist-inspired governments killed at least 100 million people. Such a bloodbath is simply the by-product of a naturalistic worldview that deems the most powerful humans to be the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong, (Augusto Zimmermann).
Among other groups on the political left, the most significant work related to evolutionary theory is Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, a book authored by anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin argued that co-operation and mutual aid are as important in the evolution of the species as competition and mutual strife, if not more so.
Scientific theories of evolution developed at approximately the same time as left-wing political theories. The Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 — 1829) published his theory of evolution in Philosophie Zoologique in 1809. Although he supported the then novel views that the Earth was ancient and organisms evolved through common descent, his mechanism was one of advancement, not natural selection (which would come later). This mechanism of advancement fitted in with cultural ideas of the Great chain of being, up which organisms would advance. While in France these ideas fitted with revolutionary philosophy and were accepted by the scientific establishment, in the United Kingdom such ideas were taken up by socialist agitators who stirred the mob to overthrow the social order and Chartists who even demanded the vote for working men. In England the scientific establishment was dominated by university clergymen who sought to demonstrate divine rule and justify the existing social hierarchy.
Karl Marx (1818 — 1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820 — 1895) published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, with Marx's work Das Kapital published in three volumes in 1867, 1885 and 1894. These works established the principles of communism, which had at its core the evolution of societies by advancement between different states. This, they argued, was caused by class struggle, and the proletariat should co-operate to overthrow the bourgeoisie.
When Karl Marx read Darwin's work on evolution he immediately believed that it supported his worldview and theory of class struggle. Karl Marx sent Darwin an autographed copy of his Das Kapital; Darwin responded with a polite "thank you" letter, but never read the book. Marx believed that Darwin's work both helped to explain the internal struggles of human society, and provided a material explanation for the processes of nature, something which his philosophy was heavily based on. However, he had difficulty accepting the apparent support Darwin's book gave to the theories of Thomas Malthus.
In 1861 Karl Marx wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lassalle, "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. ... Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."
The radical economist Herbert Spencer (1820 — 1903) coined the phrase survival of the fittest in his 1851 work Social Statics to describe his revolutionary liberal economic theory, which in 20th century terms would be considered right-wing. Spencer supported the Whig Malthusian argument that programmes to aid the poor, (i.e. the proletariat) did more harm than good, in direct contrast to Tory paternalism, and to communism which advocated "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability".
Charles Darwin (1809 — 1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823 — 1913) published their theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858, with Darwin's Origin of Species following a year later. Darwin's thesis was that organisms were able to reproduce because of differential survival (ecological selection) or attractiveness (sexual selection).
Spencer became a strong advocate of Darwinism, and the phrase survival of the fittest was included in the 6th edition of The Origin of Species published in 1872. Darwinism thus became associated with Spencer's economics and social philosophy.
Darwin was part of an upper middle-class elite. His cousin, Francis Galton (1822 — 1911) considered the implications of natural selection for human breeding, and developed what he later termed eugenics. This was taken up by others as a pseudoscience and the concepts were introduced that persons of noble blood, and those of Caucasian race should be selected by society to breed over those of lower classes and other races. In terms of class struggle, this could be seen as a form of oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.
Despite the new emphasis on natural selection, Darwin did, from the 3rd edition of Origins, include certain aspects of Lamarckism since disproven, such as the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The concept of advancement however was also still present, as can be seen in Darwin's 1871 Descent of Man
Darwin's theory was far from complete however, and the period between Darwin's death and the neo-Darwinian modern evolutionary synthesis of the 1920s and 1930s has become known as the eclipse of Darwinism because of the rejection of natural selection in favour of Lamarckian advancement.
Other noted left-wing thinkers in the late 19th century weighed in on the subject including Sir George Archdall Reid (1860 — 1929) in 1896 who published a work The Present Evolution of Man, and the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin (1842 — 1921) in 1902 published Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, which particularly opposed the "nature red in tooth and claw" concept.
The great British evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane (1892 —1964) and his esteemed pupil John Maynard Smith, (1920 — 2004) were both communists, and both worked for the British governments during the first and second world wars respectively, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_theory_and_the_political_left.

SIMMEL’S PHYLOSOPHY OF MONEY, STENGE. & SECRECY

PHYLOSOPHY OF MONEY
In The Philosophy of Money, Simmel assesses the impact of the money economy on the inner world of actors and the objective culture as a whole. Simmel saw money as linked with social phenomena such as exchange, ownership, greed, extravagance, cynicism, individual freedom, style of life, culture, and the value of personality. In general, he argued that people create value by making objects, separating themselves from those objects, and then seeking to overcome distance, obstacles, and difficulties. Money serves both to create distance from objects and to provide the means to overcome it. Money provides the means by which the market, the economy, and ultimately society, acquire a life of their own that is external to and coercive of the actor. Simmel saw the significance of the individual declining as money transactions became an increasingly important part of society. A society in which money becomes an end in itself can cause individuals to become increasingly cynical and to have a blasé attitude. In this major work, Simmel saw money as a component of life that helped us understand the totality of life.
Simmel believed people created value by making objects, then separating themselves from that object and then trying to overcome that distance. He found that things that were too close were not considered valuable and things that were too far for people to get were also not considered valuable. What was also considered in determining value was the scarcity, time, sacrifice, and difficulties involved in getting the object.
For Simmel, city life leads to a division of labor and increased financialization. As financial transactions increase, some emphasis shifts to what the individual can do instead of who the individual is. Finanical matters are in play in addition to emotions.
The central thesis of Cantó Milà's book is that Simmel's diverse reflections on money, society and modernity in The Philosophy of Money have to be understood in the context of his sociological theory of value. Contra the economists who debated whether money itself or only the commodities it could buy were intrinsically valuable, the neo-Kantians who sought transcendental criteria to ground the validity of values, and Marx who saw labour as the source of value, Simmel argued that value has no stable, objective or transcendental determinants. Value of any sort (economic, aesthetic, moral, etc.) is purely "relational" in the sense that it emerges and becomes stable only on the basis of its place within the reciprocal exchanges that constitute social relations. The value attributed to money is derived from its function as a special type of tool or medium that enables exchange between individuals (p. 106). Money in fact is simply the "reification of the social function of exchange" (p. 174). Thus money becomes the paradigmatic case which enables Simmel to explore the social sources of value/valuation in general and in the end to formulate a theory of "the ultimate significance and values of all that is human" (p. 120). It is with respect to the specific qualities of money as a measure of value — its generality, characterlessness, impersonality, divisibility, etc. — that Simmel is able to develop a diagnosis of the culture of modernity from the point of view of the money economy that binds it together.
developing sociological concepts, the 19th century schools and thinkers that influenced him (Cantó Milà discusses Kant, Marx, Spencer, Rickert, V–lkerpsychologie, and National Economy) and in particular his attempts to work out a position that could respond to (and against) the problem of value as it was articulated by the dominant neo-Kantian school in Germany at the time. In the best tradition of intellectual history, Cantó Milà argues persuasively that some of the problems that Simmel experienced in securing a professorship and that also make The Philosophy of Money seem inconsistent in places follow from his progressive (but incomplete) rejection of the academically established influences of Spencer, V–lkerpsychologie, and National Economy on one hand, and his attempt to forward a relativist or "relational" theory of values against the neo-Kantian position on the other. The relativity of his position for example was seen as an indication of the unacceptable "Jewishness" of his thought.
Cantó Milà constructs a hierarchy of Simmelian concepts which she follows with some rigour to show amongst other things that his sociological theory of value is a sub-category of a much broader and more ambitious theorization of the social. In fact as Simmel's goal in The Philosophy of Money is to understand "the ultimate significance and values of all that is human," understanding money is only a means to account for human evaluation more generally. This hierarchy begins with what for Simmel is the primary instance of sociality: the Wechselwirkung, or the "reciprocal actions and effects" (p. 44) that constitute human social existence within the process of exchanges of various sorts. This in turn is the basis of Simmel's ontological "relationism" (Cantó Milà's term). Relationism is the idea that the meaning, place or stable existence of any social phenomenon at all (e.g. money, value, poverty) has to be understood in terms of its relation to the other elements in the social exchange. What is specifically social is the relations between people rather than the people themselves or the products of these relations (values, institutions, society itself, etc.). In this perspective, social phenomena have no independent or absolute basis of existence, nor values validity, outside these relations and they are therefore subject to flux (p. 43).
From these premises Simmel argued that the proper object of sociology was not the individual nor society sui generis but the famous "forms of sociation" of his formal sociology. Society is the sum of these forms, not an object in itself nor the sum of its individual members (p. 45). Forms are the immanent or emergent rules that come to

THE STRANGER



Once again Simmel’s concept of distance comes into play. Simmel identifies a stranger as a person that is far away and close at the same time.
The Stranger is close to us, insofar as we feel between him and ourselves common features of a national, social, occupational, or generally human, nature. He is far from us, insofar as these common features extend beyond him or us, and connect us only because they connect a great many people.
Georg Simmel The Stranger 1908,
A stranger is far enough away that he is unknown but close enough that it is possible to get to know him. In a society there must be a stranger. If everyone is known then there is no person that is able to bring something new to everybody.
The stranger bears a certain objectivity that makes him a valuable member to the individual and society. People let down their inhibitions around him and confess openly without any fear. This is because there is a belief that the Stranger is not connected to anyone significant and therefore does not pose a threat to the confessor’s life.
More generally, Simmel observes that because of their peculiar position in the group, strangers often carry out special tasks that the other members of the group are either incapable or unwilling to carry out. For example, especially in pre-modern societies, most strangers made a living from trade, which was often viewed as an unpleasant activity by "native" members of those societies. In some societies, they were also employed as arbitrators and judges, because they were expected to treat rival factions in society with an impartial attitude.
Objectivity may also be defined as freedom: the objective individual is bound by no commitments which could prejudice his perception, understanding, and evaluation of the given.
 Georg Simmel The Stranger 1908,
On one hand the stranger’s opinion does not really matter because of his lack of connection to society, but on the other the stranger’s opinion does matter because of his lack of connection to society. He holds a certain objectivity that allows him to be unbiased and decide freely without fear. He is simply able to see, think, and decide without being influenced by the opinion of others.

SIMMEL ON SECRECY


In small groups secrets are not needed because everyone is so similar. In larger groups secrets are needed because everyone is so different. In a secret society the society is held together by the need to maintain the secret, which also causes tension because without the secret the society does not exist. Even in marriage secrecy must exist. In revealing all, marriage becomes dull and boring and loses all excitement. Sharing a common secret allows for there to be a strong “we feeling.” The modern world depends on honesty and therefore a lie can be considered more devastating than it ever has been before. Money allows there to be a level of secrecy that has never been attainable before it allows for “invisible” transactions, because now money is such an integral part of human values and beliefs. It is possible to buy silence.
EVOLUTION THEORY
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.
Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a compelling scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable. Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform. atural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.
In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete. cientists continue to study evolution by constructing theories, by using observational data, and by performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.

History of evolutionary thought

The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles. In contrast to these materialistic views, Aristotle understood all natural things, not only living things, as being imperfect actualizations of different fixed natural possibilities, known as "forms", "ideas", or (in Latin translations) "species".
This was part of his teleological understanding of nature in which all things have an intended role to play in a divine cosmic order. Variations of this idea became the standard understanding of the Middle Ages, and were integrated into Christian learning, but Aristotle did not demand that real types of animals corresponded one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms, and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be.
In the 17th century the new method of modern science rejected Aristotle's approach, and sought explanations of natural phenomena in terms of laws of nature which were the same for all visible things, and did not need to assume any fixed natural categories, nor any divine cosmic order. But this new approach was slow to take root in the biological sciences, which became the last bastion of the concept of fixed natural types.
John Ray used one of the previously more general terms for fixed natural types, "species", to apply to animal and plant types, but unlike Aristotle he strictly identified each type of living thing as a species, and proposed that each species can be defined by the features that perpetuate themselves each generation. These species were designed by God, but showing differences caused by local conditions. The biological classification introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to a divine plan.
Other naturalists of this time speculated on evolutionary change of species over time according to natural laws. Maupertuis wrote in 1751 of natural modifications occurring during reproduction and accumulating over many generations to produce new species. Buffon suggested that species could degenerate into different organisms, and Erasmus Darwin proposed that all warm-blooded animals could have descended from a single micro-organism (or "filament").
The first fully-fledged evolutionary scheme was Lamarck's "transmutation" theory of 1809 which envisaged spontaneous generation continually producing simple forms of life developed greater complexity in parallel lineages with an inherent progressive tendency, and that on a local level these lineages adapted to the environment by inheriting changes caused by use or disuse in parents. (The latter process was later called Lamarckism.) These ideas were condemned by establishment naturalists as speculation lacking empirical support. In particular Georges Cuvier insisted that species were unrelated and fixed, their similarities reflecting divine design for functional needs. In the meantime, Ray's ideas of benevolent design had been developed by William Paley into a natural theology which proposed complex adaptations as evidence of divine design, and was admired by Charles Darwin.


In 1842 Charles Darwin penned his first sketch of what became On the Origin of Species.

he critical break from the concept of fixed species in biology began with the theory of evolution by natural selection, which was formulated by Charles Darwin. Partly influenced by An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Robert Malthus, Darwin noted that population growth would lead to a "struggle for existence" where favorable variations could prevail as others perished. Each generation, many offspring fail to survive to an age of reproduction because of limited resources. This could explain the diversity of animals and plants from a common ancestry through the working of natural laws working the same for all types of thing.

Darwin was developing his theory of "natural selection" from 1838 onwards until Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a similar theory in 1858. Both men presented their separate papers to the Linnean Society of London. At the end of 1859, Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and in a way that lead to an increasingly wide acceptance of Darwinian evolution. Thomas Henry Huxley applied Darwin's ideas to humans, using paleontology and comparative anatomy to provide strong evidence that humans and apes shared a common ancestry. Some were disturbed by this since it implied that humans did not have a special place in the universe.
Precise mechanisms of reproductive heritability and the origin of new traits remained a mystery. Towards this end, Darwin developed his provisional theory of pangenesis. In 1865 Gregor Mendel reported that traits were inherited in a predictable manner through the independent assortment and segregation of elements (later known as genes). Mendel's laws of inheritance eventually supplanted most of Darwin's pangenesis theory.
 August Weismann made the important distinction between germ cells (sperm and eggs) and somatic cells of the body, demonstrating that heredity passes through the germ line only. Hugo de Vries connected Darwin's pangenesis theory to Wiesman's germ/soma cell distinction and proposed that Darwin's pangenes were concentrated in the cell nucleus and when expressed they could move into the cytoplasm to change the cells structure. De Vries was also one of the researchers who made Mendel's work well-known, believing that Mendelian traits corresponded to the transfer of heritable variations along the germline.
 To explain how new variants originate, De Vries developed a mutation theory that led to a temporary rift between those who accepted Darwinian evolution and biometricians who allied with de Vries. At the turn of the 20th century, pioneers in the field of population genetics, such as J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and Ronald Fisher, set the foundations of evolution onto a robust statistical philosophy. The false contradiction between Darwin's theory, genetic mutations, and Mendelian inheritance was thus reconciled.
In the 1920s and 1930s a modern evolutionary synthesis connected natural selection, mutation theory, and Mendelian inheritance into a unified theory that applied generally to any branch of biology. The modern synthesis was able to explain patterns observed across species in populations, through fossil transitions in palaeontology, and even complex cellular mechanisms in developmental biology.
 The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 demonstrated a physical basis for inheritance. Molecular biology improved our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advancements were also made in phylogenetic systematics, mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of evolutionary trees.
In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky penned that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent explanatory body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.
Since then, the modern synthesis has been further extended to explain biological phenomena across the full and integrative scale of the biological hierarchy, from genes to species. This extension has been dubbed "eco-evo-devo".

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

In contrast to the rather broad approach toward society of structural-functionalism and conflict theory, Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the relationship between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting as opposed to being acted upon.The main principles of symbolic interactionism are:
  1. human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for them
  2. these meanings arise of out of social interaction
  3. social action results from a fitting together of individual lines of action
This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of psychological theories prevalent at the time it was first formulated (in the 1920s and 1930s). According to Symbolic Interactionism, humans are distinct from infrahumans (lower animals) because infrahumans simply respond to their environment (i.e., a stimulus evokes a response or stimulus -> response) whereas humans have the ability to interrupt that process (i.e., stimulus -> cognition -> response). Additionally, infrahumans are unable to conceive of alternative responses to gestures. Humans, however, can. This understanding should not be taken to indicate that humans never behave in a strict stimulus -> response fashion, but rather that humans have the capability of not responding in that fashion (and do so much of the time).
This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought (see social constructionism and phenomenology). According to symbolic interactionism, the objective world has no reality for humans, only subjectively-defined objects have meaning. Meanings are not entities that are bestowed on humans and learned by habituation. Instead, meanings can be altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the many meanings that form their society.[11] Human society, therefore, is a social product.
Neurological evidence based on EEGs supports the idea that humans have a "social brain," that is, there are components of the human brain that govern social interaction.[13] These parts of the brain begin developing in early childhood (the preschool years) and aid humans in understanding how other people think.[13] In symbolic interactionism, this is known as "reflected appraisals" or "the looking glass self" and refers to our ability to think about how other people will think about us. A good example of this is when people try on clothes before going out with friends. Some people may not think much about how others will think about their clothing choices, but others can spend quite a bit of time considering what they are going to wear. And while they are deciding, the dialogue that is taking place inside their mind is usually a dialogue between their "self" (that portion of their identity that calls itself "I") and that person's internalized understanding of their friends and society (a "generalized other"). An indicator of mature socialization is when an individual quite accurately predicts how other people think about him/her. Such an individual has incorporated the "social" into the "self."
It should also be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a particular methodology. Because they see meaning as the fundamental component of human and society interaction, studying human and society interaction requires getting at that meaning. Thus, symbolic interactionists tend to employ more qualitative rather than quantitative methods in their research.

Limitations

The most significant limitation of the symbolic-interactionist perspective relates to its primary contribution: it overlooks macro social structures (e.g., norms, culture) as a result of focusing on micro-level interactions. Some symbolic interactionists, however, would counter that if role theory (see below) is incorporated into symbolic interactionism - which is now commonplace - this criticism is addressed.

REFERENCES
Marx, Karl. 1971. Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Tr. S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart.
Skocpol, Theda. 1980. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel M. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1942),125.
Charles J. McFadden, The Philosophy of Communism (Kenosha, WI: Cross, 1939), 35–6. Also, see Jacques Barzun’s Darwin, Marx and Wagner (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1981) for additional material on this point.
John Hoffman, Marxism and the Theory of Praxis (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1976). 69
Karl Marx, Capital, 3 vols. (London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart, 1970), 1:341.
Frederick Engels, Selected Works, 3 vols. (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1950), 2:153, quoted in R.N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1966), 64.
V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, 45 vols. (Moscow, USSR: Progress Publishers, 1977), 1:142.
Marx, Selected Correspondence, 125.
F.V. Konstantinov, ed., The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (Moscow, USSR: Progress Publishers, 1982), 42.
Cited in McFadden, The Philosophy of Communism, 36.
Engels, Dialectics of Nature,13.
Frederick Engels,Ludwig Feuerbach (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1974), 54.
Lenin, Collected Works, 24:54–5.
Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1935), 21.
 Baird, Forrest E.; Walter Kaufmann (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-158591-6.
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, introduction by Martin Malia (New York: Penguin group, 1998), pg. 35 ISBN 0-451-52710-0
 Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
 Fifty Key Sociologists: the Formative Theorists, John Scott Irving, 2007, pg 59
 "Communicating Ideas: The Politics of Scholarly Publishing", Irving Louis Horowitz, 1986, pg 281
 "Transforming Leadership", James MacGregor Burns, 2004, pg 189
 "German Realpolitik and American Sociology: an Inquiry Into the Sources and Political Significance of the Sociology of Conflict", James Alfred Aho, 1975, ch. 6 'Lester F. Ward's Sociology of Conflict'
Bourricaud, F. 'The Sociology of Talcott Parsons' Chicago University Press. ISBN 0-226-06756-4. p. 94
 Durkheim, E. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 67.
Livesay, C. Social Inequality: Theories: Weber. Sociology Central. A-Level Sociology Teaching Notes. Retrieved on: 2010-06-20.
 Knapp, P. (1994). One World – Many Worlds: Contemporary Sociological Theory (2nd Ed.). Harpercollins College Div, pp. 228–246. Online summary Isbn 978-0-06-501218-7
Weber, Thomas. Gandhi as Disciple and Mentor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004[page needed]
 Sears, Alan. (2008) A Good Book, In Theory: A Guide to Theoretical Thinking. North York: Higher Education University of Toronto Press, pg. 34-6.
 "Feminism – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
"feminism definition – Dictionary – MSN Encarta". encarta.msn.com. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition. Houghton Mifflin. 2006. ISBN 9780618701728.
 Chodorow, Nancy (1989). Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-05116-2.
 Gilligan, Carol (1977). "'In a Different Voice: Women's Conceptions of Self and Morality'". Harvard Educational Review 47 (4): 481–517. Retrieved 2008-06-08
 Weedon, C: "Key Issues in Postcolonial Feminism: A Western Perspective," 2002
 Butler, Judith (March 1992). "Feminism in Any Other Name". Differences 6 (2–3): 30.
Messer-Davidow, Ellen (2002). Disciplining Feminism: From Social Activism to Academic Discourse. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-2843-7.
 Echols, Alice (1989). Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967–1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. p. 416. ISBN 0-8166-1787-2.
Cornell, Drucilla (1998). At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02896-5.
Price, Janet; Shildrick, Margrit (1999). Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader. New York: Routledge. p. 487. ISBN 0-415-92566-5.
Spender, Dale. There's always been a women's movement. Pandora Press, London 1983
Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Feminist Consciousness From the Middle Ages to Eighteen-seventy, Oxford University Press, 1993
Walters, Margaret. "Feminism: A very short introduction". Oxford University 2005 (ISBN 0-19-280510-X)
 Kinnaird, Joan.Mary Astell: Inspired by ideas (1668-1731) in Spender, op. cit. at 29
Botting, Eileen H, Houser, Sarah L., '"Drawing the Line of Equality": Hannah Mather Crocker on Women's Rights' in American Political Science Review (2006), 100: 265-278
 Humm, Maggie. 1995. The Dictionary of Feminist Theory. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, p. 251
Levine, Donald (ed) Simmel: On individuality and social forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. p.6.
Levine, Donald (ed) Simmel: On individuality and social forms Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. p.6.
Wellman, Barry. 1988. "Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance." Pp. 19–61 in Social Structures: A Network Approach, edited by Barry Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Linton Freeman, The Development of Social Network Analysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press.
 Outhwaite, William. 1988. Habermas: Key Contemporary Thinkers 2nd Edition (2009), p.5 (ISBN 9780745643281)
 Helle, Horst J. 2009. "Introduction to the translation." Sociology: inquiries into the construction of social forms, Volume 1. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. pg. 12
http://socio.ch/sim/bio.htm Sociology in Switzerland, Georg Simmel: Biographic Information
http://www.archive.org/details/sociologyofgeorg030082mbp Simmel, Georg, and Kurt H. Wolff. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.,: Free Press, 1950.
Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997. Suicide. Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile, and Lewis A. Coser. 1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.
Hoult, Thomas Ford (1969). Dictionary of Modern Sociology. p. 139.
Marsden, George M. 1996. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. Oxford University Press, USA.
Smith, Christian. 2003. The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life. 1st ed. University of California Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1965. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. illustrated edition. Free Press.
 Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37-38. ISBN 0521629829
 Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Wiley-Blackwell.
Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Herman, Nancy J. and Reynolds, Larry T. 1994. Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology. Altamira Press. ISBN 1882289226
Blumer, H. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press. ISBN 0520056760
Sabbagh, Mark A., Lindsay C. Bowman, Lyndsay E. Evraire, and Jennie M. B. Ito. 2009. “Neurodevelopmental Correlates of Theory of Mind in Preschool Children.” Child Development 80:1147-1162.
Ebaugh, Helen Rose Fuchs. 1988. Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. 1st ed. University Of Chicago Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. ISBN 0385094027
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. MacMillan Publishing Co. ISBN 0023445602
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. First Thus. Anchor.
 Freud, Sigmund. 2009. The Future of An Illusion. CreateSpace.
Durkheim, Emile. 2008. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. abridged edition. Oxford University Press, USA.
Berger, Peter L. 1990. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Anchor.
Ritzer, George, and Douglas J. Goodman. 2003. Sociological Theory. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. P. 357.
Halle, David. 1996. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. University Of Chicago Press.




POWERED BY CHIWAMBO AUSI R. TEOFILO KISANJI UNIVESITY (TEKU), JUNE, 2, 2012




No comments:

Post a Comment