|
Objectives After completing this class, you will be able to:
Required Readings Turner 73-95 Class Preparation 1. There are a group of social theories called the rational actor theories that include functionalism, early conflict theories (Marxism for exmple), ecological theory (both community and institutional ecology), and early exchange theory that share one fundamental assumption. What is that fundamental assumption about why people as individuals, groups of people, and entire institutions "do what they do"? Hint: we call these theories rational actor theories. 2. As we discussed earlier, strict functionalism does not explain social change well and, by and large, explaining change is not a key goal of most functionalist theory. Ecological theory does try to explain change, particularly urban ecology. What are the three key forces that drive change at the community or city level? 3. We've all been working from home for about a year now. Turner and other urban ecological theorists place considerable emphasis on the role of communication technologies in driving changes in urban centers. Using figure 4.3 on p. 65 of the textbook, explain how the rise of telecommuting will change at least one or two of the proposed linkages in this theoretical model. I offer two propositions for you to consider in 4 and 5 below. I want you to put aside what you may already think and consider these propositions from the perspective of critical thinking (flexibility in mind, willingness to consider alternatives seriously, ability to examine the flaws in one's own thinking as much as in the thinking of others) and from the perspective of civic engagement (dialogue, not argument; logic not emotion, etc.) 4. In our class discussion we saw that functionalism, even Turner's version, does not really explain change well. In fact, some would argue that functionalism tends to deny or ignore the possibility and value of change. I would argue that the ecological theories do little better. They simply see change as an inevitable outcome. Most, especially Marx, see one kind of outcome as inevitable. Marx saw the evolution into a socialist (or communist) society as rather inevitable -- the next step in human social organization, really drawing on the concept of evolution. In fact, Marx argues more for "flipping" the social structure than changing it, putting workers (the proletariat) in control of decisions about how resources are used rather than the capitalists -- the owners of the means of production. Ultimately, later Marxist theorists in Russia in particular called for a "dictatorship of the proletariat." I conclude that they saw no way for society to persist without the exercise of power through social structures based on shared interests of a particular strata or group of people. Do you concur with my conclusion or not? Explain your conclusion. 5. This proposition is based on the discussion of organizational ecology. I propose the ideas in organizational ecology theory are valid and logical -- that organizations are meso-level social structures that evolve over time based on their ability to garner and use scarce resources. These resources may be social, economic, biological, cultural, or technological -- and often organizations take advantage of all these types of resources. Yet many social scientists lay the blame for almost all problems in society at the feet of the economic system -- "Capitalism IS the problem." However, capitalism is not a thing. It is a network of organizations that compete with each other, vie for resources with other kinds of organizations, cooperate with each other, etc. Capitalism is villanized by many and "big capital" -- which in general is taken to mean big companies -- is for some the root of all social ills. I do not agree that the many "ills of capitalism" are due totally -- or perhaps even primarily -- to "how private companies act." I would argue that non-profits who provide services and get money for doing so, universities that need resources to hire people like me and build classrooms and laboratories for us to do our intellectual work, political parties, fraternaties and sororities, gangs, military units, private club members, church groups and the list goes on and on -- all the different kinds of organizations fill niches and compete for resources are part of this network. It seems to me that changing capitalism per se would do little to change this competition among organizations for scarce resources. In essence, I am asking you to consider the idea that the problem is not the product of an economic system, but (perhaps unfortunately), a product of the way we ALL organize ourselves into competing structures. Do you agree or disagree with my proposition? Explain your reasoning. Preparation for Small Group Discussions. Select at least two articles from the Week 5 reading list linked below to read and analyze. As you read your selections, keep Turner's key ideas about exchange theory (conclusions section) in front of you -- pp. 92-95. Come to class prepared to apply at least three or four of his ideas to the article you read. For example, one key concept in exchange theory (Turner's item 10.A) is that low inequality among group members and equal dependence on each other for rewards increases how much people commit themselves to a group. I could apply this concept to understand the social role of gangs (organizations), why gang membership is so attractive to some young people who are resource-deprived, and why these people will do things that are very dangerous and almost bound to lead to poor outcomes in order to become and remain a gang member. After applying concepts from exchange theory, reflect and consider how other theoretical perspectives that we have examined in the course may or may not also contribute to understanding the phenomenon of interest and come to class prepared to offer some ideas about how to synthesize what the theorists we have discussed offer, using the articles you read as your discussion frame.
|