{"id":662,"date":"2010-11-03T15:09:22","date_gmt":"2010-11-03T15:09:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/?p=662"},"modified":"2010-11-03T15:24:33","modified_gmt":"2010-11-03T15:24:33","slug":"nicole-post-no-2-%e2%80%93-sociology-the-first-two-books","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/2010\/11\/03\/nicole-post-no-2-%e2%80%93-sociology-the-first-two-books\/","title":{"rendered":"Nicole – post no.2 \u2013 Sociology: the first two books…"},"content":{"rendered":"

Blog Post two \u2013 Sociology. <\/strong><\/p>\n

I have been reading about Sociology and Gender from two main texts, Marsh et al. (2009) Sociology<\/em>. Making Sense of Society<\/em> and Haralambos & Holborn (2004) Sociology Themes and Perspectives<\/em>.\u00a0 Both have given me a really good broad overview into general sociological approaches, as well as more in-depth details of sociology\u2019s approach to understanding gender.<\/p>\n

I am particularly interested in the key issues as outlined by Marsh et al. of sociological perspectives in practice and how sociological knowledge is produced.<\/p>\n

Sociological perspectives \u2013 key issues:<\/strong><\/p>\n

It seems from the readings that I have carried out so far that there is no unified body of approaches to\/theories in sociology. \u00a0Sociologists seem to struggle to agree on concepts, I am particularly interested by Gouldner\u2019s criticism describing social surveillance as \u2018cow sociology\u2019 (1975).<\/p>\n

Sociology seems to claim to follow a scientific method to collect data with which it can make statements about behavioural patterns, but these tendency statements do presumably invest quite a high percentage of their accuracy on the dependency of regularity.\u00a0 People are not necessarily always going to behave in a predictable manner, even if sociology has studied other individuals\/groups in a similar situation in the past.\u00a0\u00a0 I like the idea of considering in every situation these factors: biological, psychological and social.\u00a0 But, as my first book on sociology tells me, it is often difficult to distinguish between these factors.<\/p>\n

Production of Sociological knowledge <\/strong><\/p>\n

Marsh et al. outline the cyclical trends in sociological research (2009:119), as highlighted by McNeill (1990), and also discuss the importance, as put by Pawson, in the differences between positivist and interpretivist approaches to understanding social research: \u201cboth qualitiative and quantitative approaches face identical problems and need to adopt common solutions.\u201d (Pawson, 1989:31-2).<\/p>\n

According to Marsh et al., sociologists like Karl Marx, Durkheim and Weber base their work on analysing second-hand evidence, such as historical sources and not on first-hand research.\u00a0 Whereas Charles Booth and Seebohn Rowntree were all about the survey and qualitative research (Marsh et al.,2009:119).\u00a0 So there seems to be a dichotomy with the forms of research most appropriate for generalising societal behaviours, or for making statements on a much smaller scale of individuals\u2019 actual behaviours.<\/p>\n

I wonder how this will all tie in with looking at gender from a sociological perspective. ..<\/p>\n

Different approaches to sociology<\/strong><\/p>\n

Haralambos and Holborn\u2019s publication has a good introduction to the differences between structural and social action theories (2004:855-856).\u00a0 I found the outlines of functionalist (Durkheim, Merton and Parsons), social capital (Putnam), conflict perspectives, including Marxism (Marx), neo-Marxism (Gramsci), post-capitalism conflict theory (Dahrendorf), and social action and interpretive perspectives (Weber, Ritzer) really useful.\u00a0 I struggled to understand symbolic interaction (Mead and Dewey) with its notion of the self (2004:881), although the argument put forward by Ropers that \u201cthe activities he [Mead] sees men engaged in are not historically determined relationships of social and historical continuity; they are merely episodes, interactions, encounters, and situations\u201d (quoted in Meltzer et al., 1975) that Haralambos and Holborn include in this section (2004: 883) does make the approach of the symbolic interactionists a little easier to understand. \u00a0I loved the section on phenomenology (2004:885) (Schutz) with its wonderfully sensory approaches to understanding how people come into contact with the world.\u00a0 As an Archaeologist, this is an approach that I have come across many times and feel quite comfortable with as a useful way to try to think about the way that knowledge is constructed and shared.\u00a0 Humans creating their own idea that there is a society is something that I love the idea of, I wonder how far this approach could be used to think about the way that we understand our own gender and other individuals\u2019 projections of their own gender (or notion of it)\u2026<\/p>\n

Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel) seems a bit off the wall (it was developed in the 1960s, so\u2026).\u00a0 It looks at social order as fiction, which I like, and which could be great when looking at gender constructs (can I say that it\u2019s a \u2018construct\u2019 this early on; maybe not).\u00a0 But I do not feel comfortable with the idea of social life as Garfinkel\u2019s words here: \u201cessentiall reflexive\u201d (1967).\u00a0 So an account of the social world actually constitutes that world (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004:885-7).\u00a0 So that would mean that our attempts to define the world are what creates the world, and this really doesn\u2019t sit well with me.\u00a0 Haralambos and Holborn tell us that Gouldner was \u201cscorn[ful]\u201d of Garfinkel (1970) (I am liking Gouldner more and more), and Giddens apparently said that Garfinkel had little reference to \u201cthe pursuance of practical goals or interests\u201d (1977). \u00a0I like to think that sociology will always look to try to understand why people behave in certain ways and look at the effects of external factors on individuals\u2019 behaviours, and Garfinkel doesn\u2019t seem to think that this is important.\u00a0\u00a0 Modernity, postmodernity and postmodernism (I had no idea that there was any difference between these two) are also outlined in this section of the book.<\/p>\n

Postmodernism (Lyotard, Baudrillard, Philo and Miller) is discussed in terms of Lyotard\u2019s work with language, knowledge and narrative (1984).\u00a0 There is also a small paragraph tackling Lyotard\u2019s \u00a0approach to computers and how they were the principal \u201cforce of production\u201d (1984), and where knowledge has become commodified and will cause wars in the future.\u00a0\u00a0 Haralambos and Holborn comment that Postmodernism allows for the \u201cpossibility of tolerance and creative diversity, in which humans are not corrupted by some doctrinaire metanarrative\u201d (2004: 893).\u00a0 \u2018High modernity and beyond\u2019 is the subtitle of the next section, and this provided much opportunity for further reading.\u00a0 The section looks at Giddens, with the heightened possibility for greater reflexivity, with sociology as \u201cthe most generalised type of reflection upon modern social life\u201d (Giddens, 1991), the opportunities for globalization, and the transformations that were possible where capitalism becomes a \u2018post-scarcity system\u2019 \u2013 Are we there now with the web? I think I need to read a bit (lot!) more about this as it could be really relevant to the approaches to gender thinking about the ways that participation online is affected by ideas of who we are and what we want (of which I am sure gender is an inextricable factor).<\/p>\n

Methods for looking at social life<\/strong><\/p>\n

Participant observation, Quantitative research in the form of surveys, questionnaires and interviews, and qualitative research in the form of interviews and observations are all outlined by Marsh et al. (2009:120-125).\u00a0 Interestingly, there is also some time given in the book to the other methods of research, such as the use of secondary data, content analysis and discourse analysis, and case studies and life histories (2009:130-139), and these could be potentially very useful in looking towards understanding gender on the web.\u00a0 I will look into these different methods in more detail as the weeks go on, but for now they have made me think about the tools that sociologists have available to them as being more than a survey, a questionnaire and an interview. \u00a0Even here, there has been a revelation, in the types of interviews possible: discussed by Marsh et al. as being: 1) in-depth, 2) interactive, and 3) the most fascinating for me, generative.\u00a0 This comes from Gubrium and Holstein who say that both the interviewee and the interviewer are participants in a social process so the respondents are: \u201cconstructors of knowledge in collaboration with the interviewers\u201d (1997:114).<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Haralambos, M. & M. Holborn, 2004. \u00a0Sociology Themes and Perspectives<\/em>, Collins: London<\/p>\n

Marsh, I., M. Keating, S. Punch, J. Harden, 2009. Sociology<\/em>. Making Sense of Society, <\/em>Pearson Longman: London<\/p>\n

Please note,<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>I have not read the following books, but I have Googled the references that I have mentioned above from two books that I have<\/em> read, so that if you are interested in looking up the various bits that I have mentioned in the whistle-stop tour of my reading this week, you can do so easily.<\/p>\n

Garfinkel, H., 1970. Studies in Ethnomethodology<\/em>, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ<\/p>\n

Giddens, A., 1977. Studies in Social and Political Theory, <\/em>Hutchinson: London<\/p>\n

Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in Late Modern Age, <\/em>Polity Press: Cambridge<\/p>\n

Gouldner, A. W., 1975. For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today<\/em>, Harmondsworth: Penguin<\/p>\n

Gubrium,<\/em> J. F.,\u00a0& J. A.\u00a0Holstein<\/em>, 1997. The New Language of Qualitative Method<\/em>, Oxford University Press: Oxford<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Lyotard, J.F., 1984. The Postmodern Condition<\/em>, Manchester University Press: Manchester<\/p>\n

Meltzer, B.N., J.W. Petras, L.T. Reynolds, 1975. Symbolic Interactionism<\/em>, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London<\/p>\n

Pawson, R., 1989.\u00a0A Measure for Measures: A Manifesto for Empirical Sociology<\/em>, Routledge: London<\/p>\n

Next week…<\/strong><\/p>\n

My plan is now to look a little more in detail at some of the sociological ideas that I have come across and to read some sections of general sociology books about Gender. \u00a0I’ll stick with Haralambos & Holborn and Marsh et al., but will also look at some more specifically gender related texts, including Abbott et al. (2005) An Introduction to Sociology. Feminist Perspectives<\/em>, Backett-Milburn & McKie (2001) Constructing Gendered Bodies, <\/em>and the one that I am most excited about: Case (1990) Performing Feminisms. Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. <\/em> That last one may seem a little off the wall, but I am thinking that the idea of feminist theory and theatre may translate quite nicely across to the web as at the moment I don’t see why actions within virtual communities can not be seen as being performative, and there are some good links to identity and gender online within these communities. I think.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Blog Post two \u2013 Sociology. I have been reading about Sociology and Gender from two main texts, Marsh et al. (2009) Sociology. Making Sense of Society and Haralambos & Holborn (2004) Sociology Themes and Perspectives.\u00a0 Both have given me a really good broad overview into general sociological approaches, as well as more in-depth details of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":124,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[264],"tags":[448,445,423,447,446,248],"class_list":["post-662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sociology-discipline","tag-ethnomethodology","tag-feminism","tag-gender","tag-phenomenology","tag-postmodernism","tag-sociology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/124"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=662"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":664,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/662\/revisions\/664"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/comp6044\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}