Contemporary Social Theory: What Happens After “Modernity?” Spring, 2012
Nina Eliasoph, Department of Sociology, University of Southern California,
Thursdays, 12:30-1:30 and 3:30-5 or by appointment. Kaprielian Hall (KAP) 338. Please let me know
beforehand if you plan on coming. Office: Kaprielian Hall 338;
email: eliasoph@usc.edu
“Modern” social theory—from the 1700’s till the past three decades or so--was about the “melting into
air” of the Old Order based on a prescribed social hierarchy, shared religion, locally rooted customs and
loyalties, and rural life. Modernity promised universal human harmony, productivity, self-rule, democracy,
“liberty, equality, and brotherhood.” Different theorists defined modernity’s promises and problems but
they all agreed that modern society did not always--or even ever--fulfill its promises, and had various
programs for getting closer to the ideals. The problems of modernity are still with us, in some ways, but
many of modernity’s problems are no longer ours, and we might have some new ones that the modern
people did not have. If part of social theory’s job is to help us critique our society, to make it better, we
need a new diagnosis. We need to know if, and if so, how, our era produces and maintains new problems
that require new solutions—new forms of inequality and injustice, complete instability and
precariousness rather than modernity’s problems of monotony and monoculture.
We first examine new forms of work. Next, we turn to forms of identity, nationhood and immigration. Is
universalism, and the hope for universal solidarity and the overthrow of oppression, dead? If so, what
replaces them, as sources of selfhood and togetherness? What are the racial and gender taken-forgranted’s of “grand theory” if any, and what should replace that type of theorizing, if it should be replaced
or transformed? How does our understanding of rational, systematic inquiry—science—change if we no
longer believe in a universal reality that humans can discover in a form that is entirely separate from our
own human activity of investigating it?
Our methods for studying society reflect our theories of society: “modern” theorists imagined a world that
was much more stable than ours, in which rebellion against established authorities was progress, and
necessary. Criticizing structures was a theory that demanded located stable, oppressive “structures.”
Should that still be the main agenda, or are there additional new ones that reflect new conditions?
“Cultural capital,” “invented tradition,” “the linguistification of the sacred,” and “a communication theory
of action vs. a ‘consciousness-based’ model,” “the cultural (or linguistic) turn,” “imagined community:” all
of these concepts, in various ways, get at the ways that organizations actively create, in everyday practice,
the things that modern theory called “structures.” Perhaps these newer approaches help us get a new
foot in the door of social change and critique. In any case, whether intentionally or inadvertently, all social
research implies a vision of a better possible society. To do good research, and activism, we have to be
clear about what that vision is, and whether we actually want what we think we want, and whether it
really makes sense.
AFTER ALL OF THIS, OUR JOB AS SOCIOLOGISTS, IS TO IMAGINE A WORLD IN WHICH PEOPLE DEMOCRATICALLY AND
REASONABLY ORGANIZED SOCIETY TO MAKE IT BETTER AND TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET TO THAT WORLD. HOW, AFTER ALL
THIS, CAN WE IMAGINE SAYING THAT WE WANT TO “MAKE THE WORLD BETTER” WITHOUT PUTTING THE “BETTER” IN QUOTES?
THIS COURSE WILL KEEP CIRCLING AROUND THAT QUESTION, FROM MANY ANGLES.
Books to buy:
W. E. B. Du Bois, The Oxford W. E. B. Du Bois Reader, Eric Sundquist, ed., Oxford University Press.
David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity
Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity
Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality
Partha Chatterjee, from The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World,
Columbia University Press, 2004.
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality
1
Joan Tronto, Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care
Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction
Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis
Jurgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2
A photocopied reader in the bookstore; also available on Blackboard
Jan. 13
Introductions
I. DO WE STILL LIVE IN “CAPITALISM,” AND IF SO, WHAT’S NEW?
Jan. 19
David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (skim the first half of the book; read pages 121-239, 284345, and look at all the nice pictures on the pages that we’re not reading...
II. THE INDIVIDUAL—WHERE DID IT GO? DID IT EVER EXIST? HOW, IF AT ALL, DOES IT EXIST?
THE INVENTION OF THE MODERN INDIVIDUAL, HIDE-AND-SEEK
Jan. 26
Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (1-21; 54-55; 7086; 103-108;133-171;201-208; and skim 208-end)
Feb 2
Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality, Vol. I (whole book)
Feb 9
Joan Tronto, Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care
Feb 16
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (whole book)
III. SEEMINGLY PRIMORDIAL CATEGORIES: ARE THEY PARTLY PRODUCTS OF MODERNITY?
WHAT ARE WE DOING WHEN WE USE THESE TERMS?
Feb 23
1. “nature,” “community” “illness”
Michel Foucault, “On Governmentality” + Nikolas Rose, Pat O ‘Malley, and Mariana Valverde,
“Governmentality”
Mar 1
2. “nation”—studies of imperialism and post-colonial studies
Partha Chatterjee, selections from The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of
the World, Columbia University Press, 2004 (selected chapters to be announced).
+ Arjun Appadurai, “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” from Modernity at Large:
Cultural Dimensions of Modernity
+ W. E. B. Du Bois, in The Oxford W. E. B. Du Bois Reader:
“The Souls of White Folk” (497-509),
+ “Of Work and Wealth” (523-535)
+ “Of the Ruling of Men” (middle of 555-562)
+ “Manifesto of the Second Pan-African Congress (640-644)
+ “Class Struggle” (2 pages in photocopied reader)
March 8
2
3. “race” and “self”: standpoint theories, as seen from different standpoints
Jane Addams, “Introduction” and “Charitable Effort” in Democracy and Social Ethics.
W.E.B. Du Bois (all readings are in The Oxford W. E. B. Du Bois Reader):
The Souls of Black Folk (chapter 1, 2, 3 (101-131)
+ “The Field and Function of the American Negro College” 409-423)
+ “A Negro Nation within the Nation” (431-438)
+ “Americanization” (383-4);
+ “The Conservation of Races” 38-47)
+ “The Concept of Race” (bottom of p. 94, starting with “I think it was in Africa…” to the end of
the essay on p. 96)
+ “I Take My Stand for Peace” (464-469)
MARCH 12-17 SPRING BREAK
IV. WHAT IS “SOCIAL STRUCTURE?” HOW DOES IT EXIST?
March 22
****PAPER ONE DUE IN CLASS****
1. People know more than they know that they know –routines, habits, symbols and categories
Pierre Bourdieu,
“Logic of Practice” (selections IN READER)
+ Bourdieu, “The Logic of Fields,” from Invitation to a Reflexive Sociology, Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc
Wacquant
+ Distinction: See handout that I will pass out beforehand. Read:
Ch. 1 [11-96]; Ch. 2 [124-150—just get the gist]; Ch. 3 [177-208]; Ch. 4 [232 (bottom)-249; skim
the rest]; Ch. 5 [just read the "ethnographic scenarios" (in small print, between zigzagging lines)
and pages 309-317]; Ch. 6 [just 318-323, 351-371]; Ch. 7 [372-390]; Ch. 8 and 9 [whole chapter]
and skim appendices 1 and 4.
March 29
2. How everyday routines do or don’t construct, challenge and reproduce social reality
Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (whole book)
Arlie Hochschild, “Emotion Work, Feeling Rules, and Social Structure,” American Journal of Sociology,
1979.
April 5
3. Where should we look for social structure, order and sense-making ?
Erving Goffman, “Footing,” (Semiotica, 1979)
Aaron Cicourel, “Notes on the integration of micro-and macro-levels of analysis,” in Advances in
Sociological Theory and Methods
Harold Garfinkel, “Discovering Structure in Speech,”
and Harvey Sacks, “On the Analyzability of Children’s Stories,” in Directions in Sociolinguistics John
Gumperz and Dell Hymes, eds., Basil Blackwell, NY, 1973: 309-324
V. HOW DO ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS ARISE?
HOW DO THEY GUIDE INTERACTION? HOW ARE THEY CONSTITUTED IN INTERACTION?
April 12
1. Organizational forms and how they arise and keep going
Read first, to see why the theoretical q’s are so interesting: Steven Sampson, “The Social Life of Projects:
Importing Civil Society to Albania,” in Civil Society: Challenging Western Models.
Also read: In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, eds.:
“Introduction,” Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell
3
+ “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” John Meyer and
Brian Rowan;
+ “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization
Fields,” Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell; and
+ “Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions,” Roger
Friedland and Robert Alford.
April 19
2. Structures of argumentation as ways of bringing realities into being: Luc Boltanski and Laurent
Thévenot, On Justification
+ Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thevenot, 1999: “The Sociology of Critical Capacity,” in European Journal of
Social Theory 2 (3): 359-377.
Thevenot, Moody and Lafaye, “Forms of Valuing Nature” in reader
VI. WHAT IS DEMOCRACY AFTER ALL THIS? HOW COULD ANYONE CLAIM TO HAVE A REASONABLE OPINION ABOUT
ANYTHING? AND HOW COULD ANYONE’S IDEAS EVER HAVE ANY PRACTICAL EFFECT?
April 27
Jurgen Habermas, “The Public Sphere”
+ Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the Public Sphere,” from Habermas and the Public Sphere
+ Jurgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2 [pages 43-198, 343-403]
****FINAL PAPER DUE: MAY 7, ON EMAIL****
Assignments:
1. Two papers over the course of the semester:
The FIRST paper will be 7-10 double-spaced pages, normal margins (or the equivalent in 1.5 spaced; print
double-sided if possible AND send by EMAIL).
The SECOND will be slightly longer—10-15 pages (or longer, if you want, up to 25 pages but no more,
please). See below for more specifications.
We will discuss a handout on “How to write a good essay” the second week of class.
2. Two sets of questions and comments on a reading or readings for the week, no more than one and a
half pages, for the class to discuss. This must be distributed at least 36 hours before the class meeting
(that is, no later than Tuesday night for the Thursday morning class). These are done in pairs, on three
weeks that you think might interest you. The main point of these is to spark discussion. These can be
exclamations of bewilderment (“How can the author say x and also say y when they seem contradictory?”
e.g.). Or they can focus on questions that you hope will spark interesting discussion (“What if the author
paid more attention to x?”). Or they can be applications (“How would the author analyze x situation?”).
They can be extensions of the theory (“Would what the author says about religion apply to art as well?”
“Would what the author said about Mexico apply to the US?” e.g.). Your pair’s in-class presentation
should be about 15 minutes.
Grading:
45%: for each paper. However, if there is great improvement from the first to the second, more weight
will go to the second—the better—paper.
10% of the grade is for class participation, including the questions and comments on the readings.
Miscellaneous:
1. If you need to be absent more than three times over the semester, please find another course. If you’ll
be absent for a scheduled event (religious holiday, wedding, e.g.), please notify me at the beginning of the
semester.
4
2. Please refrain from surfing the web, doing email, texting, playing computer games, or sleeping in class.
It is extremely distracting to the entire class. If you are using a laptop, the temptation is high, so if you
think you might be tempted, please bring a pen and paper, instead.
3. Plagiarism is very unfair to your fellow students. Mediocre essays are easy to find and easy to recognize
as copied. If you copy a phrase or sentence from a source other than the author him/herself, you must
cite your source. It is fine to use secondary sources (that is, textbooks, internet sources, “X for Beginners”
type books, friends’ papers even) as long as you give each of your sources credit, with a footnote that
makes it clear exactly which ideas you have quoted or paraphrased from the source. Please note that
these sources can be unreliable. If you are not sure what counts as “plagiarism,” please consult USC’s
plagiarism policy: http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/student-conduct/ug_plag.htm and if you still
have questions, please ask me
5. If you have a documented disability, let me know what we can do to accommodate your style of
learning. Often, the “accommodations” I have made for one person have ended up being beneficial for
the whole class, and then I end up making them into requirement for the whole class the next time I teach
it. Thinking creatively about accommodation is a very welcome challenge for me. For more information
on how to document a disability, go to http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/asn/dsp/index.htm
THE PAPERS—specifications
Each paper has to focus on two or more of the course readings. The discussion of the course readings has
to be at the very center of the paper. It has to engage the readings directly, and engage them with each
other. The paper cannot be mainly about x and then incidentally refer to some ideas from the course.
The papers will develop a question or an argument. There are several ways to approach this job:
 Develop a question that one might be able to research. Do NOT try to do the research; just say
how the theories help you develop smarter questions than you may have had beforehand.
 Compare and contrast two readings.
 Ask what would happen if the author had to use his/her ideas to explain something that s/he did
not study (for example, if Bourdieu wrote about the US instead of France and Algeria, or if
Foucault wrote about 21st century US instead of mid-20th century US, or Goffman wrote about
temp jobs instead of long-term ones, or x tried to explain the thing that most excites you in your
research) For one paper, you can think about the empirical object that you might want to study
for your masters/doctoral thesis, and write with the aim of clarifying the questions you might
want to entertain. However, do not devote all your papers to the same topic—for example, even
if your goal is to write a dissertation about the rise of the fox trot as a dance form, or the rise of
capitalism, please treat some other substantive topic for one of your papers.
 Do not make controversial empirical claims that require support unless you also take space to
make the case for your interpretation. If you want to make a claim that is hotly debated, with
data on both sides, then try to figure out a way to write the paper to avoid having to rely on one
side’s fact. It is okay to assert empirical claims that are pretty-much agreed-upon, such as “the
earth revolves around the sun.”
OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL READINGS
Neoliberalism: what is it and where did it come from?
David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiappello, The New Spirit of Capitalism
Pekka Himanen, The Hacker Ethic
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy
Guy deBord, The Society of the Spectacle
Frederic Jameson, Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
Alvin Gouldner, The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class
Manuel Castells, The Power of Identity
J.K. Gibson-Graham, “Post-Fordism as Politics,” In The End of Capitalism (as we knew it).
Nikolas Rose, Governing the Soul
5
Modernity’s tidy categories and their demise:
Optional further reading:
Alberto Melucci, The Playing Self
Alisdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: a study in moral theory
Ulrick Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash, Reflexive Modernization
Robert Wiebe, The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (U.S history)
Zygmunt Bauman, Postmodern Ethics
The individual”—what do we mean when we say it exists?
Louis Dumont, “A Modified View of Our Origins: The Christian Beginnings of Modern
Individualism,” in 93-122, in The Category of the Person, ed. By Michael Carrithers, Steven
Collins, Steven Lukes
Norbert Elias, History of Manners
Phillipe Aries, Centuries of Childhood: a social history of family life
Sociolinguistics--how interaction and “structure” mutually constitute each other
Aaron Cicourel, Cognitive Sociology
Harold Garfinkel, “What is Ethnomethodology?” in John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, Directions in
Socio-linguistics
Nina Eliasoph and Paul Lichterman, “Culture in Interaction,” American Journal of Sociology
M. M. Bakhtin, “The Problem of Speech Genres”
How people bring nation and race into existence and perpetuate their existences
Orhan Pamuk, Istanbul: Memories of a City (the best non-academic book describing the mutual
construction of self, place and nation—a memoir)
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self, and The Ethic of Authenticity
Charles Taylor and K. Anthony Appiah, Multiculturalism (just their essays in the collection)
Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in America
Howard Winant, Racial Conditions: Politics, Theory, Comparisons (1-35, 130-156)
Pragmatism and sociolinguistics
John Dewey, The Public and its Problems, Experience and Education
Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life
Aaron Cicourel and Karin Knorr-Cetina, Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an
Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies
Harold Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology
John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, eds.Directions in Sociolinguistics
John Heritage and J. Maxwell Atkinson Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis
Pier Paolo Giglioli, ed., Language and Social Context
John Gumperz, Language and Social Identity or Discourse Strategies
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations
Laurent Thevenot, “Which Road to Follow? The Moral Complexity of an ‘Equipped Humanity,” in
John Law and Annemarie Mol, eds., 2002: Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices
How organizational forms arise and how they guide action
Robert Alford and Roger Friedland, Powers of Theory
Elisabeth Clemens, The People’s Lobby
Elizabeth Armstrong, Forging Gay Identities
Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox Optional further reading:
Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality
6
7