Professor of Sociology
Sociology
325: Moral Sociology and the Good Society
(Or:
What Good does this Major do Anyway?)
Professor
Jim Spates
Spring, 2003
MWF 11:15-12:10
Spring, 2003
MWF 11:15-12:10
THE
PROBLEM
When Auguste Comte coined the term "sociologie" in mid-19th century France, there is no doubt he believed that not only would his new discipline soon become a field recognized around the world but, in due course, its meticulous studies would produce, for the first time, a scientifically accurate understanding of society and its processes, an understanding which would allow us to live-indeed, construct-better lives. In other words, for Comte (and, at least for the next few decades, for many sociologists who followed him), the goal of sociology was unabashedly moral, its purpose the development of a theory of the good society, a model which, put into practice, would help end human suffering as we know it.
Little genius is needed to recognize that Comte's vision has gone wanting on both fronts. Anyone who argues that we live in salubrious societies today would be immediately suspect as naive or mad. In the 150 years since Comte put pen to paper, humanity has slogged and stumbled through an era of exploitation and human horrors previously unimaginable. Indeed, the century just ended attained the dubious distinction of being history's bloodiest and cruelest. Nor do we begin the new millennium with great optimism: while we read this, our leaders plan to launch a war against another country which is supposedly a threat to our "national security," while, at the same time, 45 million Americans have no health care and fully half the world's population of 6 billion and more goes to bed hungry every night. And, as for Comte's vaunted new science of society-the discipline that was supposed to save us-rather than basking in pre-eminence and respect unshakable, it has attained other dubious distinctions: to wit: currently, sociology languishes in virtual obscurity in the public mind and is considered by many (when it is considered at all) as a jargon-laden, painful belaboring of the obvious.
This detachment from civic regard, I believe, is in large measure a consequence of how most current practitioners of sociology view their field. For no longer is Comte's insistence that the goal of sociology is to produce a model of a better social order taken seriously; indeed, with few exceptions, today's sociologists shun, as a fate worse than death, any and all suggestions that their findings might be used to suggest that one form of social life might be preferable to another. "Science," such practitioners argue, "by its very nature does not make value judgements. Science reports. It describes only what its analytical eye allows it to see. As a science, sociology is and must be, now and always, an amoral endeavor. Science-and hence sociology-has no ability to say that this way of life is better than that way of life. Value judgements, laden as they always are with this bias or that, are anathema; they lie in the province of the public, are the purview of private citizens, the fodder contending groups use to argue for the supposed "superiority" of their own favored interpretations of how to live best. The moment scientists indulge in such evaluative enterprises we eradicate, immediately and irrevocably, our most crucial asset, our objectivity." Ironically-again, it takes little imagination to see the connection-taking such a stance has ensured that sociology, the field which studies social life, has become virtually irrelevant to social life. For the days and lives of our fellow social beings are always value-centered. Questions like "How should we live?" "What should I do with my life?" "Is this a good job to take?" "How should I bring up my children?" "Should I live a life where I help others or one where I can make money? And, are the two always opposed?" permeate our days and discussions. If sociology cannot help us answer such questions and suggest, on the basis of its findings, better ways of living together, most people ask, what good does it do? The answer is obvious.
Which question is a variant of our central concern in this course: What good was this major anyway? Here you are, taking a high level course in this so-called "science of society," facing your last year or graduation and the world having chosen to specialize in a field held by many in disdain. As a result, are your future conversations relegated to not telling people what your major is or was or, instead, to mumbling its name with marvelous softness, knowing that open proclamation of passion for your favorite field might result in snide smiles, rolling eyes, or scurrilous remonstrance? Or, is it just possible that here, in these next few precious weeks, as the much anticipated sweet Spring approaches to warm and revitalize these two colleges by the long lake once again, that we can come to some new understandings which might allow us to face those as yet nameless, faceless critics with pride and confidence, armed with meaningful rejoinders that will silence the sniggers, rivet the rotating eyes, and bring the caustic comments up short? Is it just possible that, by reviewing our chosen field, its basic assumptions and theoretical orientations, and by putting these in different perspective, we can renew our understanding of and approach to the study of the field which Comte so long ago (quite rightly) claimed was the most relevant and important of the sciences, a field of inquiry which, properly pursued, still holds the promise of helping us find ways of unraveling the twistings and torments produced by our misconstructed social realities-of doing, in short, some good? In a few weeks-after considerable careful reading, chat and writing-we shall know.
THE
COURSE
Format:
Discussion, almost always. Except for one or two days, I am not planning
to lecture. Each day we will come, great texts (kings' treasuries!) in hand,
ready to talk about the ideas contained therein. Each day you will be expected
to have done the reading, to know the definitions of all words in those
readings, and to have thought long and hard about the issues. You will
also be expected to contribute to class.
Attendance: Required. You may have three absences. No explanations necessary. After that, you will lose one-third of a grade from your final grade for each absence. So plan your leavings carefully. Note: In addition to our normally scheduled class sessions, there will be a number of films shown in the evenings. You are required to attend these (what Goffman would call) "showings" as well. So as you read the daily outline below, be sure to note these extra sessions on your calendars.
Evaluation: Your grade will be based on the following:
a.) Two Mid-Term Exams, each worth 30% of the grade.
b.) A Final Paper, no less than 15 pages long, worth 40% of the grade. This paper will summarize your overall understandings of the course material. It paper will be due at the time of the scheduled final exam (see daily outline below). However your assignment is finally framed, it will be your task, as you summarize the course, to provide an answer to the "The Problem" posed above.
c.) Class Participation: I will be evaluating this throughout the term. How well you do on this dimension, for which I reserve the right to add or subtract credit at the end of the semester, depends on how much and how well you contribute to our discussions. You can (and should) ask me how you are doing in this respect at least once during the term.
Readings: The books for the course are listed below. All are available in the bookstore. (Nb: It is critical that you use these editions. That way we can be on the same page! Other readings, some of which I will place on Reserve in the Library (see daily schedule following), you will have photocopy (unless I distribute them in class, of course).
John Ruskin, Unto This Last and Other Writings (Wilmer, editor)
Charles Dickens, Bleak House
Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis
Plato: Republic (Grube-Reeve translation)
Jonathan Kozol, Ordinary Resurrections
John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment
Alan Wolfe, Moral Freedom
In addition, as you will discover very quickly, you will need (1) a very fine dictionary and (2) a King James Version of The Bible.
Attendance: Required. You may have three absences. No explanations necessary. After that, you will lose one-third of a grade from your final grade for each absence. So plan your leavings carefully. Note: In addition to our normally scheduled class sessions, there will be a number of films shown in the evenings. You are required to attend these (what Goffman would call) "showings" as well. So as you read the daily outline below, be sure to note these extra sessions on your calendars.
Evaluation: Your grade will be based on the following:
a.) Two Mid-Term Exams, each worth 30% of the grade.
b.) A Final Paper, no less than 15 pages long, worth 40% of the grade. This paper will summarize your overall understandings of the course material. It paper will be due at the time of the scheduled final exam (see daily outline below). However your assignment is finally framed, it will be your task, as you summarize the course, to provide an answer to the "The Problem" posed above.
c.) Class Participation: I will be evaluating this throughout the term. How well you do on this dimension, for which I reserve the right to add or subtract credit at the end of the semester, depends on how much and how well you contribute to our discussions. You can (and should) ask me how you are doing in this respect at least once during the term.
Readings: The books for the course are listed below. All are available in the bookstore. (Nb: It is critical that you use these editions. That way we can be on the same page! Other readings, some of which I will place on Reserve in the Library (see daily schedule following), you will have photocopy (unless I distribute them in class, of course).
John Ruskin, Unto This Last and Other Writings (Wilmer, editor)
Charles Dickens, Bleak House
Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis
Plato: Republic (Grube-Reeve translation)
Jonathan Kozol, Ordinary Resurrections
John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment
Alan Wolfe, Moral Freedom
In addition, as you will discover very quickly, you will need (1) a very fine dictionary and (2) a King James Version of The Bible.