1
Contemporary Sociological Theory (SC407-W)
[Thematic Node: Problems of Late-Modernity and their Moral Geometries]
Minnesota State University, Moorhead: Spring Semester 2015
(A Contract-Based Writing Intensive Theory Course)
Thought Leader: Dr. Lee Garth Vigilant
On the Late-Modern Condition:
“The construction of a scientific object requires first and foremost a break with common sense, that is, with the
representations shared by all, whether they be the mere commonplaces of ordinary existence or official representations,
often inscribed in institutions and thus present both in the objectivity of social organizations and in the minds of their
participants. The preconstructed is everywhere. The sociologist is literally beleaguered by it, as everybody else is. The
sociologist is thus saddled with the task of knowing the object –the social world- of which he is the product, in a way such
that the problems that he raises about it and the concepts he uses have every chance of being the product of this object
itself.” –Pierre Bourdieu and Loic J. D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago.
“Social reproduction is thus asymmetrical. Women in their domestic role reproduce men and children physically,
psychologically, and emotionally. Women in their domestic role as housekeeper reconstitute themselves physically on a
daily basis and reproduce themselves as mothers, emotionally and psychologically, in the next generation. They thus
contribute to the perpetuation of their own social roles and positions in the hierarchy of gender…Because women are
themselves mothered by women, and grow up with the relational capacities and needs, and psychological definition of
self-in-relationship, which commits them to mothering. Men, because they are mothered by women, do not. Women
mother daughters who, when they become women, mother.” –Nancy Chodorow, Reproduction of Mothering:
Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley.
“Terrorism in all its forms is the transpolitical mirror of evil. For the real problem, the only problem, is: where did Evil go?
And the answer is: everywhere –because the anamorphosis [distorted projection] of modern forms of Evil knows no
bounds. In a society which seeks –by prophylactic measures, by annihilating its own natural referents, by whitewashing
violence, by exterminating all germs and all of the accursed share, by performing cosmetic surgery on the negative- to
concern itself solely with quantified management and with the discourse of the Good, in a society where it is no longer
2
possible to speak Evil, Evil has metamorphosed into all the viral and terroristic forms that obsess us.” Jean Baudrillard’s
“Whatever Happened to Evil?” From The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomena. Verso.
“Globalisation can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a
way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. This is a dialectical process
because such local happenings may move in an obverse direction from the distanciated relations that shape them. Local
transformation is as much a part of globalisation as the lateral extension of social connections across time and space.” –
Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford.
“Overcoming essentialism, and allowing for variations both between and within units for comparisons, compares that
which otherwise, without variation, remains essential, constant, and necessary in all possible worlds. We can now build a
coherent and explanatory theory of variations between and within cultures. What is more, we can do so with the same
sociological variables and do not need theories of each distinct area of culture. This is a sign of a strong theory: it
decomposes natural kinds and essences, rearranging the parts on higher levels of generality with broader explanatory
range.
Strong theories economize on explanation costs.
All this becomes possible once variation is allowed for,
essentialism is overcome, and the right frames of comparison are found.”–Stephen Fuchs, Against Essentialism: A Theory
of Culture and Society. Harvard.
“We must cease at once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms; it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it
‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects
and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production.” –Michel
Foucault, Discipline and Punishment. Pantheon.
Required Texts:
Charles Lemert. 2013. Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings, 5th Edition. Westview.
Donald Black. 2011. Moral Time. Oxford University Press.
Elizabeth Pisani. 2008. The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS. W.W. Norton &
Company.
Required Articles:
Gabriel A. Acevedo. 2005. “Turning Anomie on its Head: Fatalism as Durkheim’s Concealed and
Multidimensional Alienation Theory.” Sociological Theory, Vol., 23, No. 1 (March): 75-85).
Donald Black. 2004. “The Geometry of Terrorism.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1 (March): 14-25).
Neil Gross. 2005. “The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 3
(September): 286-311).
Douglas Hartman and Joseph Gerteis. 2005. “Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multiculturalism in
Sociological Terms.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 2 (June): 218-240).
Joseph H. Michalski. 2003. “Financial Altruism or Unilateral Resource Exchanges? Toward a Pure Sociology of
Welfare.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 21, No. 4 (December): 341-358.
Rekha, Mirchandani. 2005. “Postmodernism and Sociology: From the Epistemological to the Empirical.”
Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1: 86-115.
George Ritzer. 2003. “Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing.”
Sociological Theory, Vol. 21, No. 3 (September): 193- 209.
Christian Smith. 2009. Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. Six Major Religious
Types (Chapter 6). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vigilant, Lee G., Trefethren, Lauren W., and Anderson, Tyler C. 2013. “You Can’t Rely on Somebody Else to Teach Them
Something They Don’t Believe”: Impressions of Legitimation Crisis and Socialization Control in Narratives of
Homeschooling Fathers. Humanity and Society, Vol. 37: 202-224.
3
Kenji Yoshino. 2000. “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure.” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Jan):
353.
Recommended Texts:
Stephen Fuchs. 2001. Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society. Harvard.
Margaret S. Archer and Jonathan Q. Tritter. 2000. Rational Choice Theory: Resisting Colonization. Routledge.
Jean Baudrillard. 2002. The Perfect Crime. Verso.
Jean Baudrillard. 1998. Paroxysm: Interviews with Philippe Petit. Verso.
Jean Baudrillard. 1996. Cool Memories II. Verso.
Jean Baudrillard. 1990. The Transparency of Evil: Essays on Extreme Phenomenon. Verso.
Patrick Baert. 1998. Social Theory in the Twentieth Century. NYU.
Pierre Bourdieu. 2001. Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market 2. The New Press.
Pierre Bourdieu. 1998. Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market. The New Press.
Pierre Bourdieu, et al. 1993. The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society. Stanford.
Pierre Bourdieu. 1990. In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford.
Rosi Braidotti. 1994. Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory.
Columbia.
Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago.
Michel Foucault. 1986. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 3: The Care of the Self. Vantage.
Anthony Giddens. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford.
Jurgen Habermas. 1995. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. MIT Press.
James B. Rule. 1997. Theory and Progress i Social Sciences. Cambridge.
Steven Seidman. 2004. Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Blackwell.
Seminar Description:
This advanced seminar concerns late-modernity through the spectre of sociological theories on power, knowledge,
networks, and reflexivity. We consider how (w)riters of society have interpreted the last fin-de-siecle and beyond through
readings, lectures, and discourse. A central theme of this course is the way sociology has moved away from the Grand
Theorizing that marked 19th/early 20th Century attempts to (w)rite society. We consider theories on major dilemmas of the
late-modern condition, and reflect on how the (his)torical dualisms of object/subject, rational/emotional, positive/reflexive,
and agency/structure have confounded attempts at understanding society in times past. Along the way, we consider who
exactly is empowered to theorize society, and who is silenced. A concomitant concern is the scope conditions that
constrain competing theoretical paradigms (rational choice, structuration, symbolic interactionism, structural functionalism,
structuralism, post-structuralism, sex/gendered epistemologies, critical theory, network theory, critical race theory, and the
like). Finally, through articles from the journal Sociological Theory and other scholarly supplements, we examine how
contemporary theory informs understanding of identity, intimacy, anomie (both personal and social), terrorism,
multiculturalism, legitimation crises, and globalization: the ‘problems’ of late-modernity.
Seminar Structure:
During a typical class period, I will present a lecture on the theory under study. These lectures will include an intellectual
biography of the theorist(s), the initial problem that sparked her/his sociological imagination, the central propositions of
their conjectural statements, their theoretical scope conditions, and finally, the current limitations with the framework and
what needs to be “carried forward”. I will lecture for ½ to ¾ of the week’s allotted period, and leave the remaining time to
our discussant leader(s) for the week. Of course, please feel free to stop me at any time with your questions, comments,
and criticisms: This is a seminar. I will endeavor to distribute weekly handouts on my lectures that will cover the central
positions of the theory under study.
Dragon Core Competencies (Writing Intensive Course Designation)
4
Contemporary Sociological Theory (SC407) carries a writing intensive course designation (“W”), and addresses all six (6)
written communication competencies of the Dragon Core Curriculum. The Dragon Core writing competencies (modified
and paraphrased for our purposes) that are extended in Contemporary Sociological Theory (SC407) are as follows:
(1)
SC407 employs a “coherent writing process” that includes the opportunity to submit early drafts for editing.
(2)
SC407 encourages you to consult with the professor (or the Write Site) to “produce quality written
products.”
(3)
SC407 requires the synthesis of scholarly readings in your Analytic Reaction Papers (ARPs).
(4)
SC407 calls for the use proper citation of sources (American Sociological Style) in your ARPs and term
paper. You will cite both text and electronic materials.
(5)
SC407 requires that you make logical and cogent arguments when writing ARPs. (See instruction on
grading procedure.)
(6)
SC407 requires the use of correct grammar and spelling in all written products.
This advanced seminar requires close and careful reading and writing. Students with disabilities who need an
accommodation in this class are encouraged to contact Greg Toutges, Director of Disability Services at 477-4318 (voice)
or 1-800-627-3529 (MRS/TTY), Flora Frick 154 at your earliest convenience so that accommodations are implemented in
a timely fashion. Find information on Disability Services at web.mnstate.edu/disability. I am pleased to make these
arrangements on your behalf.
Contract Grading Procedure
Contractual Obligations for Grade A
 Consistent class attendance (no more than 3 absences) & informed participation as discussant leader (at least
on two (2) occasions): Each participant will also serve as a thought & question leader during our discussion
period. I will assign readings to various participants on a weekly basis, and you will be responsible for raising
critical questions or points of discussion for the group. The easiest way to accomplish this task is to bring a
written question, or quotation, or personal comment(s) from the readings to share with the group during the
discussion period. These are informal writing opportunities for discussant leaders to share thoughts and initial
reactions on the readings with the group as well as to guide in-class discussions. These comments and
questions (about a paragraph in length) will constitute part of your attendance and participation grade, so be
certain to hand them to me after your presentations. Missing more than three (3) classes will automatically
result in a lower course grade. I take class attendance very seriously and I expect your presence whenever the
course is in session. This attendance-based grade reduction is consistent with the Student Handbook’s Student
Absence Policy: “(b) not penalize the student for nonattendance unless the student is absent without official
excuse for more class periods during the term than the number of periods the class meets each week (or more
than two class periods during a summer session).” After your third (3rd) absence, I deduct a grade level +/- from
your grade (excessive absences [six or more] will result in further reductions). I will, however, accept a doctor’s
note for serious debilitating illness and accept absences for required military service. I will not consider any
other excuses for nonattendance: PLEASE DO NOT ASK!
 Three (3) short essays (minimum of 4-5 pages each) on particular sets of readings. These essays are
analytic reaction papers (ARPs) that summarize the essential ideas of the theoretical pieces and critique the
scope conditions of the paradigm under study. These writing projects will also apply the theory to a social
problem of late-modernity. I may ask you to read these meditations to the group, so be precise in editing
grammatical errors. Remember, students enrolled for credit can submit rough-drafts of all assignments to me (at
least a week before the due date) to ensure a polished product, and as always, I encouraged you to use the
Write-Site for assistance with your writing. These ARPs come due on the week the topic is dicussed (see memo
on grading procedures on page 5). As this is a writing intensive and a contract-graded course, all submitted
essays must be written on a level that is commensurate with your contract; if it is not “on the level,” I will return it
5
to you with instructions to correct the grammatical, spelling, and/or syntax errors, and to resubmit. I will collect
ARPs on the first day of a new topic. You have a choice of any three (3) sections. Due Date: Ideally, I would like
to collect these papers on the first day the topic is duscussed, which is usally on Monday.
 Reaction Essay to Elizabeth Pisani’s The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of
AIDS (5 pages in length). (Due Date: Monday, 3rd March, 2015)
 Outline (5-7 pages) of Donald Black’s Moral Time. (Due 2nd February 2015: 5-7 pgs.)
● An intellectual biography of a major contemporary social theorist. You will write an intellectual biography (1015 pages) of a major 20th/21st Century social theorist. (1) You will summarize her/his theoretical contributions to
the problems of modernity. (What is the ‘dilemma’ for this theorist?) (2) You will consider her/his influences
(classical and/or contemporary), and how her/his theory embodies cumulative knowledge or the attempt to
“carry forward” the ideas of someone else. (3) You will interrogate the scope conditions (or limitations) with
her/his explanations. Finally, and by way of epistemic reflexivity, (4) you will share your thoughts on why you
are drawn to the writings of this theorist, and whether you believe there are questions that you might carry
forward in your own theorizing. Your citation and bibliography will conform to American Sociological Association
(ASA) style. You will make a brief (15 minutes) presentation to the class on your findings. (Intellectual
Biographies due on Friday 8th May 2015 at 12:00pm)
Contractual Obligations for the Grade A
1. Consistent Class Attendance (no more than three (3) absences)
2. Discussant Leader (w/Outline of Quotations/Questions/Comments) on Two (2) Occasions
3. Three (3) Analytic Reaction Essays on Selected Readings (4-5 pages each…due weekly)
4. Analytic Reaction Essay to The Wisdom of Whores (5 pages in length due 3/9/2015)
5. Outline (7- 10 pages) of Donald Black’s Moral Time. (Due 2nd February: 5-7 pgs.)
6. Intellectual Biography (10-15 pages in length)
Contractual Obligations for the Grade B
1. Consistent Class Attendance (no more than three (3) absences)
2. Discussant Leader (w/Outline of Quotations/Questions/Comments) on Two (2) Occasions
3. Three Essays on Selected Readings (4-5 pages in Length each…due weekly)
4. Analytic Reaction Essay to The Wisdom of Whores (5 pages in length due 3/9/2015)
5. Outline (5-7 pages) of Donald Black’s Moral Time. (Due 2nd February: 5-7 pgs.)
Contractual Obligations for the Grade C
1. Consistent Class Attendance (no more than three (3) absences)
2. Discussant Leader (w/Outline of Quotations/Questions/Comments) on One (1) Occasion
3. Two (2) Essays on Selected Readings (4-5 pages in Length each…due weekly)
4. Analytic Reaction Essay to The Wisdom of Whores (5 pages in length due 3/9/2015)
5. Outline (3-5 pages) of Donald Black’s Moral Time. (Due 2nd February: 3-5 pgs.)
Seminar Outline:
Week 1 (12th January). The Problems of Late-Modernity, Theoretically (and Theatrically) Re-Considered.
1.
Charles Lemert. Social Theory: Its Uses and Pleasures, pg. 1. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Alvin Gouldner. Toward a Reflexive Sociology, pg. 320. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Samuel Beckett. 1953. Waiting for Godot: A Tragicomedy in Two Acts. (Act II).
http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part2.html
Week 2 (19th January). The Ghost of Durkheim in Variations of Structural (Func)tionalism.
1.
Emile Durkheim. Suicide and Modernity, pg. 63. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Robert K. Merton. Social Structure and Anomie, pg. 174. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Robert K. Merton. Manifest and Latent Function, pg. 236. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Talcott Parsons. Action Systems and Social Systems, pg.231. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
6
-----------------------5.
Gabriel A. Acevedo. 2005.
“Turning Anomie on its Head: Fatalism as Durkheim’s Concealed and
Multidimensional Alienation Theory.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1 (March) 75-85.
Week 3 (26th January). Memories of Excess: Weber’s “Rational” M(oder)nity and its Global Legacy.
1.
Max Weber. The Bureaucratic Machine, pg. 83. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Max Weber. Types of Legitimate Domination, pg. 88. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Ulrich Beck. World Risk Society, pg. 475. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Stanley Hoffman. The Clash of Globalizations, pg. 455. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
5.
Saskia Sassen. Toward a Feminist Analytics of the Global Economy, pg. 468. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
6.
Achille Mbembe. Necropower and the Late Modern Colonial Occupation, pg.479. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
------------------------8.
George Ritzer. 2003. “Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and
Something/Nothing.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 21, No. 3 (September): 193- 209.
Week 4 (2nd – 13th February). Where Marx Haunts: Theories of Conflict in a Repressive M(oder)nity
1.
Karl Marx. Estranged Labour, pg. 29. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto of Class Struggle, pg. 34. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Georg Lukacs. The Irrational Chasm Between Subject and Object, pg. 160. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Student for a Democratic Society. Participatory Democracy (from The Port Huron Statement) pg. 269. In
Lemert’s Social Theory.
5.
Herbert Marcuse. Repressive Desublimation, pg. 324. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
6.
Louis Althusser. Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatus, pg. 245. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
7.
Theda Skocpol. The State as a Janus-Faced Structure, pg. 302. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
8.
Slavoj Zizek. Cynicism as a Form of Ideology, pg. 503. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
--------------------------9.
Donald Black. 2004. “The Geometry of Terrorism.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1 (March): 14- 25).
10. Donald Black. 2011. Moral Time. Oxford University Press. (Due 2nd February: 5-7 pgs. outline of Moral Time)
Week 5 (18th February). Theories on the Problems of the Late-Modern Gendered Self
1.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Women and Economics, pg. 132. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Nancy Chodorow. Gender Personality and the Reproduction of Mothering, pg. 305. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Simone de Beauvoir. Woman as Other, pg. 259. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Dorothy Smith. Knowing a Society from Within: A Woman’s Standpoint, pg. 294. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
5.
Paula Gunn Allen. Who is Your Mother? Red Roots of White Feminism, pg. 426. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
6.
Bettty Friedan. The Problem That Has No Name, pg. 271. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
7.
Gloria Anzaldua. The New Mestiza, pg. 412. . In Lemert’s Social Theory.
Week 6 (23rd February). Theories on the Problems of the Racialized Self -in-Society
1.
Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Race as the Trope of the World, pg. 390. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Cornel West. The New Cultural Politics of Difference, pg. 383. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Patricia Hill Collins. Black Feminist Thought in the Matrix of Domination, pg. 403. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction and the Racial Wage, pg. 183. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
5.
Aime Cesaire. Between Colonizer and Colonized, pg. 261. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
6.
Franz Fanon. Decolonizing, National Culture, and the Negro Intellectual, pg. 273. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
7.
Elijah Anderson. The “Nigger Moment” in the Cosmopolitan Canopy, pg. 489. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
8.
William Julius Wilson. Global Economic Changes and the Limits of the Race Relations Vision, pg. 496 In
Lemert’s Social Theory.
------------------------
7
9.
Douglas Hartman and Joseph Gerteis. 2005. “Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multiculturalism in Sociological
Terms.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 2 (June): 219-240).
Week 7 (2nd March). Legitimation Crisis (Or, Losing ‘Faith’ in the Prevailing Promise of Modernity)
1.
Sigmund Freud. Civilization and the Individual, pg. 112. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
W. W. Rostow. Modernization: Stages of Growth, pg. 226. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Jurgen Habermas. Critical Theory….Communicative Competence, pg. 363. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Michel Foucault. Biopolitics and the Carceral Society, pg. 311. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
10. David Harvey. Neoliberalism on Trial, pg. 453. . In Lemert’s Social Theory.
------------------------5.
**Vigilant et al. 2013. “You Can’t Rely on Somebody Else to Teach Them Something They Don’t Believe”:
Impressions of Legitimation Crisis and Socialization Control in Narratives of Homeschooling Fathers. Humanity
and Society, Vol. 37: 202-224.
Week 8 (9th March). Toward a Network Theory of Culture, Altruism, and the Spread of Disease
1.
Elizabeth Pisani’s The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS. W.W. Norton.
(Due: 9th March 2015)
2.
Manuel Castells. The Global Network, pg. 464 in Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Georg Simmel. The Stranger, pg. 139. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. The Rhizome/A Thousand Plateaus, pg. 506. In Lemert’s
Social Theory.
-----------------------------3. **Joseph H. Michalski. 2003. “Financial Altruism or Unilateral Resource Exchanges? Toward a Pure Sociology of
Welfare.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 21, No. 2 (December): 342-358. (**I highly recommend this essay for an ARP.)
Week 9 (23rd March). Religion, Morality, and the Quest for Symbolic Immortality in Late-Modernity (A Spiritual Praxis)
1.
Reinhold Niebuhr. Moral Man and Immoral Society, pg.187. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Marin Luther King, Jr. The Power of Non-Violent Action, pg. 264. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Christian Smith. 2009. Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults. Six Major
Religious Types (Chapter 6). New York: Oxford University Press.
-----------------------------4.
Lee Vigilant and John B. Williamson. 2003. Symbolic Immortality and Social Theory: The Relevance of an
Underutilized Concept.
Pg. 173-182 in The Handbook of Death and Dying, edited by Clifton D. Bryant.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Week 10 (30th March – April 1st). The Body: Epistemologies of Sexuality, Identity, and Corporeality.
1.
Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Desublimation, pg. 324. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Epistemology of the Closet, pg. 429. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Jeffrey Weeks. Sexual Identification is a Strange Thing, pg. 416. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Audre Lorde. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House, pg. 333. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
5.
Judith Butler. Imitation and Gender Insubordination, pg. 419. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
6.
Arlene Stein and Ken Plummer. “I Can’t Even Think Straight”, pg. 361. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
------------------------7.
Kenji Yoshino. 2000. “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure.” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 2
(January): 353.
8.
Simon Gottschalk. 2010. “The Presentation of Avatars in Second Life: Self and Interaction in Social Virtual
Space.” Symbolic Interaction, Vol. 33, Issue 4, pp. 501-525.
Week 11 (31st March – 4th April). Theories on Reflexive Processes in Late Modernity: Structuration
1.
Anthony Giddens. Post-Modernity or Radicalized Modernity? Pg. 367. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
David Riesman. Character and Society: The Other-Directed Personality, pg. 249. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
8
------------------------3.
Neil Gross. 2005. “The Detraditionalization of Intimacy Reconsidered.” Sociological Theory, Vol. 23, No. 3
(Sept.): 286-311).
4.
Anthony Giddens. “The Theory and Practice of the Pure Relationship.” In Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and
Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford.
Week 12 (8th -16th April). Theories on Reflexive Processes: Habitus, the Field, and Techniques of Distinction (Pierre
Bourdieu)
1. Pierre Bourdieu. Structures, Habitus, Practices, pg. 329. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2. “Sociology is a Martial Art:” A Film by Pierre Carles (2001)
Week 13 (20th – 24th April). The Problems of Late-Modernity I: Panopticism, Power Spectacle, and the Postmodern
Condition
1.
Michel Foucault. Power As Knowledge, pg. 353. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
2.
Nancy Hartsock. Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women? Pg. 375. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
3.
Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulations: Disneyland, pg. 357. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
4.
Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Postmodern Condition, pg. 347. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
5.
Zygmunt Bauman. Liquid Modernity, pg. 450. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
6.
Trinh T. Minh-ha. Infinite Layers/Third World?, pg.396. In Lemert’s Social Theory.
-----------------------7.
Rekha Mirchandani. 2005. “Postmodernism and Sociology: From the Epistemological to the Empirical.”
Sociological Theory, Vol.23, No. 1 (March): 86-115.
Presentations on Intellectual Biography (A-Contracts)
Monday, April 27th 2015
1.
______________________________________
2.
______________________________________
3.
______________________________________
Wednesday, April 29th 2015
1.
______________________________________
2.
______________________________________
3.
______________________________________
Friday, May 1st 2015
1.
______________________________________
2.
______________________________________
3.
______________________________________
Monday, May 4th 2015
1.
______________________________________
2.
______________________________________
3.
______________________________________
(Intellectual Biographies [10-15 pgs. in length] for “A-Contract” due on Friday 8th May 2015 at 12:00pm)
Further Instructions on Due Dates and Grading Criteria for Analytical Reaction Papers and Research Project
Due Dates: Analytic Reaction Papers for a particular set of readings will come due on the day those readings
are discussed. For instance, if you decide to write an ARP for the topic “Theories on the Problems of the Late-Modern
Gendered Self,” then the due date for that essay is Monday, February 18th. Late analytic papers are not accepted, so
please plan to read and write ahead of the listed due dates for your three (3) analytic essays.
9
What makes an “A” paper? An “A” paper is a concept-driven, clearly written & organized, concisely worded, and
cogently argued piece. A concept-driven paper is one that demonstrates an advanced understanding of the theory under
study. This paper explicates and critiques the central suppositions of the theory as well as its scope conditions
(limitations). A concept-driven paper is also one that can apply the theory to a social problem in a way that reveals the
reader’s grasp of the nuances of the theory’s core propositions. An “A” paper is clearly written and organized. It has an
introduction that proposes the thesis or central idea. The body of the paper develops the ideas in its introduction, while the
transitions between paragraphs are smooth and logical. Of course, each paragraph contains sentences with related points
and these ideas flow in a coherent way. On a related note, an “A” paper makes statements that are supported with
evidence. The criticisms contained in these papers are not merely based on unsupported conjectural or emotive
sentiments (i.e., “I really don’t agree with what she is saying.”). These papers will provide factual or related theoretical
materials to buttress criticisms and standpoints. “A” papers will contain a strong conclusion that ties central ideas together.
The conclusion does not formulate new points, but rather ends by emphasizing the main arguments in the body of the
essay. An “A” paper is concisely worded. Your analytic reaction papers, which are a minimum of four pages in length,
should not be verbose and repetitive. Strive for succinctness in your analysis.
Finally, an “A” paper has a cogent
argument: it is logical, convincing, persuasive, and forcefully delivered.
I love to give the “A” grade to deserving papers, and I encourage you to submit rough-drafts of all written
assignments (at least one week before the due date) for my perusal. I keep a file of exceptional analytic reaction papers
(ARPs) that is available for your scrutiny. These “A” papers serve as examples of the four Cs: clear, concept-driven,
concise, and cogent writing.
Intellectual Biography: The aforementioned criteria also apply to your research project with a few addendums.
Your intellectual biography is a research paper that requires a minimum of ten scholarly sources, where at least five (5) of
these sources must come from peer-reviewed social science journals. Your references and bibliography will conform to
American Sociological Association style (see the journal American Sociological Review). An example of this citation style
for peer-reviewed journal articles is as follows:
Vigilant, Lee G. 2005. "I Don't Have Another Run Left With It": Ontological Security as a Focal Expression of
Narratives on the Meaning and Practice of Recovery on Methadone Maintenance." Deviant Behavior, Vol. 26,
No. 5 (Sept.- Oct.): 399-416.
Following the ASA style, the author’s full name is listed, followed by the publication date, the title of the article
(which falls within quotations), the journal name (which is always in italics), the volume and number, month (or season) of
publication, and finally page numbers. The ASA citation style for an edited text and book are as follows:
Joel Powell Dahlquist and Lee Garth Vigilant. 2004. "Way Better Than Real: Manga Sex to Tentacle Hentai" (pg.
91-103)." In Dennis Waskul's (Editor) Net.SeXXX: Readings on Sex, Pornography, and the Internet . Peter Lang
Publishers.
Joel M. Charon and Lee Garth Vigilant. 2006. Social Problems: Readings with Four Questions. The Wadsworth
Sociology Reader Series. CA, United States: Thomson Wadsworth.
10
Finally, I encourage you to submit early drafts of your intellectual biography. I am available to assist you in
finding good peer-reviewed journal sources in the social sciences as you research your topic.
Thought Leader:
Lee Garth Vigilant, A.M. and Ph.D. Boston College, Professor of Sociology.
Electronic Mail & Tele:
vigilant@mnstate.edu (218)477-2034
Website:
web.mnstate.edu/vigilant
Office & Hours:
Lommen Hall 212-J (Soc/CJ Department): M 3-4:00p.m.; T 3-6:00pm; W 3-6:00pm; TH 3-6:00pm;
F (by appointment)
Cover:
From the New College of Sociological Pataphysics: Protean Self.” (Collage ‘04)
Protean Self:
It is about time. It is about you. In your
purse, there is a passport, a boarding pass, three credit cards, and some greenbacks. You (want
to) leave tomorrow. But today, you need a theory that explains why now is the perfect time to
go.
______________________________
It is about the choices you have made, both (ir)rational
and strategic ones. Your present life is the sum of past choices –and you know this only too well.
______________________________
It is about you and your confused and vacillating
identity: a protean self perfectly suited for the contours of late-modernity.
______________________________
It is about change. It is about you. How fast can you run
from your past? How close is your present life to the one you left behind –the one you would
soon forget?
______________________________
In your purse are the requisite tools to colonize a vastly
different future. Will you? (And if no, why not?)