Reading Guide Syllabus Section I: What is Sociological Theory? Collins and Makowsky, Introduction: Society and Illusion

1. The key thing that Collins and Makowsky are trying to explain in this introduction is why it took so long for sociology to develop, and why obstacles to sociology's acceptance and development continue to exist. They note that the development of sociology has involved "a long and arduous effort" and that while sociology "is not an impossible science, it is a very difficult one."

Why is this? Why did it take so long for sociology to emerge as an independent science? Why did sociology emerge when and where it did (in nineteenth century Europe)? What "illusions" had to be overcome in order for sociology to come into being? What were the key discoveries that helped people overcome these illusions? And why do Collins and Makowski believe that even today, "the sosical world as we know it and have known it is mostly illusion." Be prepared to discuss these questions.

2. What is the importance of the fact/value distinction for sociology?

3. What are C&M talking about when they refer to psychological reductionism and the misconceptions that a too-liberal identification with the physical sciences can engender? Why do they consider these illusion?

4. What is Collins and Makowsky's view of how much progress has been made in sociological theory so far?

Collins and Makowsky, Ch. 1: The Prophets of Paris

Chapter 1 introduces you to two rather eccentric Frenchmen who played an important role in laying out an early vision for sociology: Saint- Simon and Comte.  Here are some discussion questions to consider.

1. Collins and Makowsky quote at length on pp. 22-23 from what has become known as Saint-Simon's "Parable of the Idlers."  What was the key sociological point Saint-Simon was making in this passage?

2. What do Collins and Makowsky mean when they say that Saint-Simon developed what came to be known as the "ideology of industrialism"?

3. What did Comte's positivism consist of?

4.  What were the key elements of his theory of society and social change?

5. Why do Collins and Makowsky consider Comte's legacy so mixed?

Philip Carl Salzman, Understanding Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theory, Ch. 1

1. What is Salzman's point about Margaret Mead? What is his point about the relationship between theory and research?

2. Explain the distinction between "heuristic theory" and "substantive theory."

3. Why can we only say that data "support" a theory, rather than prove it?

4. What does it mean to say that facts are interpretations?

5. What is "meta-theory" and how does it relate to the other types?

6. What was the importance of postivism--or the "scientific model of knowledge--for early anthropology? How has that model been challenged by some more recent anthropologists? What does Salzman mean when he says: "Every discussion of culture theory today is conditioned by the debate among advocates of these opposing epistemological visions"?

7. Understand the following: descriptive generalizations vs. theoretical generalizations; nomothetic theories (explanation) vs. idiographic theories (explication).

Robert Wood, An Introduction to Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962)

1. The key thing to keep in mind when reading this summary of Kuhn's book is that Kuhn is criticizing what he perceives to be the dominant (positivist) view of what science is and how it progresses. What is the view of science that Kuhn is disputing? Why does he find this view inadequate?

2. What is Kuhn's alternative view of science and scientific progress? In understanding this view, it is important to understand the following key concepts:

paradigm
normal science
anomaly
extraordinary science
scientific revolution

Try to draw out the basic meaning of these concepts as clearly and concretely as possible.

3. What are the basic characteristics of scientific revolutions? What is Kuhn trying to show by making an analogy to political revolutions? What examples can you think of scientific revolutions?

4. Try to think about what relevance Kuhn's discussion has for sociology and anthropology. Does sociology fit Kuhn's model of what science is and how it progresses? Does Kuhn fall into the "postmodernist" and "epistemological relativist" camp discussed by Salzman? How does Kuhn's analysis shed light on the state of sociological theory today?