Sociology 210B: Contemporary Theory
Spring 2017
Time & Place: Wednesday 2:00-5:00pm, SSPB 4250
Instructor: Evan Schofer
Office Hours: SSPB 4271, Monday 3:30-4:30 and by appointment
Course readings (password provided in class): http://webfiles.uci.edu/schofer/classes/2017soc210b/readings
Alternate link: http://webfiles.uci.edu/schofer/classes/2017soc210b/readings
Handouts & notes: http://webfiles.uci.edu/schofer/classes/2017soc210b/coursefiles
Introduction
This course is not a systematic review of contemporary sociological theory. Partly, it is difficult to cover the contemporary canon in a mere ten weeks. Partly, the canon is not especially well defined. Partly, some elements of the canon are not used very much. And, partly, some key theoretical traditions are covered more thoroughly in other classes, such as Sociology of Culture.
If one did wish to cover contemporary theory in a more systematic way, I would suggest the following outstanding syllabi: Kieran Healy: http://kieranhealy.org/files/teaching/contemp-theory.pdf Or, Marion Fourcade: http://www.marionfourcade.org/teaching/graduate-courses/
Instead, this course focuses on teaching students how to become theorists, themselves, drawing on selected theoretical traditions that are useful and central to faculty research here at UCI. The course is about how to use, extend, and develop sociological theory that engages with contemporary literatures. In sociology, theory is frequently divorced from the “ordinary” day-to-day work of empirical sociologists, a rarified topic that is addressed by a few specialists in the discipline. Or, it ends up boiling down to a few ritualistic cites to Foucault or Bourdieu in the introduction of a paper. This course focuses on integrating theorization with contemporary empirical research. To accomplish this, the course explores the development of particular sociological perspectives, focusing on how recent scholars have applied, refined, and extended some key theoretical traditions, and/or examining some significant theoretical debates that animate current scholarship.
Readings
Complete reading assignments prior to the class in which material will be covered. You will get much more out of class if you have already finished the readings.
Assignments and Evaluation
Assignments. There will be five short assignments, collectively worth 90% of your final grade. Most are brief exercises, though some are a bit more involved.
Class Participation. You are expected to attend class regularly and contribute to class discussion. Class participation will count for 10% of your final grade.
This course does not have a miderm or final exam.
Assignments received late will be marked down one partial grade (i.e., and A becomes an A-, C+ becomes a C; numerically graded assignments decrease by one point) per day past the due date. Extensions will be granted for legitimate reasons if requested in advance.
Your final grade will be computed based on the percentage weightings indicated. I typically apply a curve to raise the grade distribution. In the event of a borderline grade, I may use my discretion in adjusting grades based on course participation, improvement, and effort (or lack thereof). Incompletes will not be given, except in unusual circumstances.
Schedule & Reading Assignments
* indicates optional reading
Spring Quarter 2017: Instruction begins April 3, ends June 9, Holiday May 29
NOTE: I may make modifications or updates to the readings and assignments. If so, this will be done well in advance, and I will give you plenty of warning.
Week 1 (April 5): Introduction
No assigned readings. Get started on readings for next week!
Week 2 (April 12): Developing sociological concepts
Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Forms of Capital.” Excerpt from Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology. 94:S95-S120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
Short Assignment #1 Due
Contrast the theoretical development of an article published in a major sociology journal with one in a second-tier journal. Pick a seminal AJS or ASR article and a second-tier journal article in the same field. Discuss the theoretical contributions of each article. Extra credit: speculate on how the second tier article could have been improved to become a first tier article. Aim for 2-3 pages.
Week 3 (April 19): Testing a theory
Lareau, Annette. 2002. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families.” American Sociological Review 67: 747-76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088916
Week 4 (April 26): Thinking about competing theories
Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race. 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Ch. 1.
Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, Living in the Red. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapters 1 and 3.
Pager, Devah, Bart Bonikowski and Bruce Western. 2009. “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment.” American Sociological Review 74(5): 777-799. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27736094
Short Assignment #2 Due
Reflect on the race versus class debate (2-3 pages). Pick an phenomenon of interest to you, such as educational inequality, income inequality, residential segregation, friendship networks, etc. Briefly summarize important issues that a scholar focused on race might emphasize in studying the phenomenon. If possible, articulate concrete arguments or hypotheses one might develop. How might a scholar focused principally on class analyze the same issue? Again, be specific and try to articulate hypotheses. For the purposes of this exercise, resist the urge to blend or merge the two perspectives; explore the possibility that each could be fundamentally more important than the other.
Week 5 (May 3): Develop a typology and apply theory to a new domain
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology. 78(6):1360-1380. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392
Granovetter, Mark. 1983. “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited.” Sociological Theory. 1:201-233. http://www.jstor.org/stable/202051
Ferguson, Ann Arnett. 1991. “Managing without Managers: Crisis and Resolution in a Collective Bakery.” Pp. 108-132 in Michael Burawoy et al. Ethnography Unbound. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Week 6 (May 10): Merge two theories
Snow, David, E.B. Rochford, S. Warden and Robert Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51:464-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095581
Goffman, Erving. From Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. Ch. 1 and 2: “Introduction” and “Primary Frameworks.
Short Assignment #3 Due
Analyze cultural frames in a new domain (2-4 pages). Pick a social process of interest to you, such as political competition, gender inequality or immigrant rights. Describe 2 frames that are dominant in the political/cultural discourse. Drawing on Snow et al, analyze the use of these frames.
Week 7 (May 17): Developing and extending concepts: performativity & reactivity
Kieran Healy. 2016“The Performativity of Networks.” European Journal of Sociology, 56:175–205.
Optional: Donald MacKenzie. 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapters 1, 2, 9.
Week 8 (May 24): Developing a theory
Jepperson, Ronald and John W. Meyer. 2011. “Multiple Levels of Analysis and the Limitations of Methodological Individualisms.” Sociological Theory. 29(1):54-73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41057695
Schofer, Evan, Ann Hironaka, David John Frank, and Wes Longhofer. 2012. “Sociological Institutionalism and World Society.” In The New Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, edited by E. Amenta, K. Nash, and A. Scott. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Short Assignment #4 Due
Alternatives to methodological individualism: Think of a specific paper or a general topic of interest that you are familiar with (educational inequality, immigration, social movements). To what extent does the paper (or literature) tend to emphasize methodological individualism versus meso- or macro-level processes? If all levels are addressed, give examples of each. If only some levels are addressed, describe them and then suggest one or more potential arguments that might focus on a different level.
Week 9 (May 31): Explain a Puzzling Case
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530: 74-96.
Alba, Richard Alba and Victor Nee. 1997. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review. 31(4):826-874. FOCUS ON Extensions of the Conceptual Canon – pp. 833-841. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2547416
Herbert J. Gans. 1999. “Symbolic ethnicity.” Making Sense of America. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Pp. 167-199.
Week 10 (June 7): The Foucaultian tradition
Focault, Michel. [1976] (1998). The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin. [excerpt]
Short Assignment #5 Due
Write a short (3-4 page) memo discussing the (potential) theoretical contribution(s) of your second year paper. Your memo should start with an overview of the project. You may draw on work from the Research Design class. Include the research question, a brief rationale for its sociological importance, your basic arguments/hypotheses, and a brief summary of the research design and data (~2 pages). (If some details are not worked out — for instance you have not chosen your data — indicate some hypothetical data that you might use.) Use the remaining space to elaborate on the theoretical dimensions of the project. What theoretical traditions or debates does your project address? Do you engage in theoretical or conceptual development? If your project does not have a strong theoretical contribution in its current form, that’s OK… but use this space to think about how it might be developed in the future to have a larger theoretical contribution. It is OK to be imaginative… for instance, you can discuss directions that are not actually practical or feasible for your 2nd year paper).