Thursday, December 13, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Intro Soc Theory Final Exam Review Sheet
Introduction to Sociological Theory
Review Sheet for Final Exam: Sociological Theory in
(December 10, 2007, 10:30am)
The final exam covers the overview of sociology in
You should be able to define and discuss all of the following terms:
Urbanization
Immigration
Progressive Movement
Social Darwinism
Herbert Spencer
William Graham Sumner
The
Urban Ethnography
Symbolic Interactionism
Robert Park
Charles Horton Cooley
George Herbert Mead
Structural Functionalism
Talcott Parsons
“The Structure of Social Action”
Neo-Marxism
Critical Theory
Feminist Theory
Social Constructivism
Post-positivism and post-modernism
W.E.B. DuBois
“color line”
Booker T. Washington
Tuskegee Institute
“double-consciousness”
“the veil”
“the talented tenth”
“colortocracy”
The
The
The Souls of Black Folk (1903)
Marcus Garvey
C. Wright Mills
Radical sociology
“The Power Elite”
Triangle of Power
“military-industrial complex”
Social revolts against the power elite
“The Sociological Imagination” (1959)
Gender Inequality
Charlotte Perkins Gillman
“Women and Economics” (1998)
Nuclear family
Gender socialization
Sex differences
Introduction to Sociological Theory Lecture Notes for Final Exam Dec. 10
The origins of American sociology
American sociology originates during Reconstruction, following the Civil War. As in Europe, the mid- to late-19th century was a period of intense urbanization, but in the American case, also of immigration, mostly from
Very rapid flow of ideas from
Americans were trained in European universities
1858- course in “Social Problems” at
1873- William Graham Sumner (Herbert Spencer’s American protégé) begins teaching “social science” at Yale
1880s- “sociology” courses begin to appear
1889- first American sociology department, at the
1892- Sociology department founded at the
Early American sociologists were not nostalgic (compare with Ferdinand Toennies)
They were political liberals, generally unfamiliar with Marx’s writing
They were social progressives; they believed in progress, w/or w/out government action
There was a strong influence of Protestantism: desire to save the world, in this case using science rather than scripture: to “solve social problems” without radically changing society
Compared with
American sociology was mostly positivist, “scientistic” and pragmatic
Turned away from Weberian interpretive historical approaches, Verstehen
Less theoretical interpretation of long-term changes
More quantitative analysis of short-term changes
Until WWI, Social Darwinism was highly influential
Herbert Spencer (
The
The
Encouraged a scientific approach to sociology
Robert Park (former journalist, trained in
Initiates tradition of “urban ethnography”
Charles Horton Cooley
George Herbert Mead
Study social psychology, “Symbolic Interactionism” (micro-sociology of identity, subjective experience)
We’ll discuss these more later.
The
Critical of “dust bowl empiricism” of the
1937, Parsons publishes “The Structure of Social Action”
(more on him later)
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore were Parsons’s most famous students (functionalist theory of stratification)
Structural functionalism is dominant in American universities from the 1930s-early 1960s, then falls apart
Rejection of Structural-Functionalism
“Europeanization” of American sociology, renewed interest in Marx, Weber and Durkheim, minus Parsons’s idiosyncratic interpretation of them
1) return of conflict theories
a. neo-Marxisms, e.g. Critical Theory; Feminist theory
2) emergence of cultural theory
a. Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Michele Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu
b. Social Constructionism (Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann)
c. Post-positivism, Postmodernism, rejection of “scientism”
Taught sociology at
Like Bourdieu and others, DuBois did not distinguish theory from practice
Not a professional academic theorist; someone who wanted to explain and improve the situation of African-Americans (not long after abolition, 50 years before the Civil Rights movement, affirmative action)
DuBois’s mother was a maid, father a barber, preacher, drifter—left the family.
His mother died while he was a boy.
By age 16 he was self-conscious of his race, the “color line,” and class
Four white men paid for his education at
Thought that African-Americans should organize together, accept the color line—they should not organize and strive in terms of values of individualism, egalitarianism, or economic participation (e.g. Booker T. Washington and the Tuskegee Institute, a technical institute in
DuBois teaches poor black children in the east
7th ever African-American student at Harvard; first to complete a PhD there
While studying at Harvard, DuBois traveled to
DuBois returns to the
—against racism, colonialism, imperialism
—for communism, socialism
Major ideas
the “race idea”—which he took seriously, accepted without much questioning
the “color line”—relation of the “darker” and “lighter races” across the world (the American Civil War is just one example, not unique)
“double-consciousness” or “two-ness”—the experience of being of African origin and American—a divided identity (prefigures identity politics, sociological interest in identity construction)
“the veil”—metaphor, in which African-Americans and their problems are hidden from white
“colortocracy” of light-skinned blacks in the African-American community—excessive pride in their noses, skin color, hair
The “talented tenth” of African-Americans would lead their communities
Writes The Philadelphia Negro (1899), which was commissioned by the
The Souls of Black Folk (1903) was his major book on race and class. He was the first to write about these issues sociologically and systematically
Political career
Debates with Jamaican Marcus Garvey, who wanted to bring African-Americans back to
Loses all popularity
Seen as snobbish (which he was), elitist
Proponent of socialism, communism—neither are popular in
Regains popularity since the 1970s-ish
Post-colonial studies, studies of globalization
Ethnic and racial studies, departments, multiculturalism
e.g. at UNT we have Women’s Studies and Jewish Studies departments, an African-American Studies institute, Mexican-American Studies, and the Study of Sexualities
Establishment of departments of African-American studies, e.g. Harvard has the W.E.B. Dubois Institute for African and African American Research—a famous institute, often in the news, a site of major academic controversies
Henry Louis Gates Jr., Cornel West (left for
1937, “The Structure of Social Action”
Discusses Weber, Durkheim, Pareto
In so doing, introduces theory as a legitimate area within American sociology
His translation of Weber, and his interpretation of all 3, are now seen as biased
He suggested that all three were building to his Structural Functionalism
He was concerned with “macro” sociology, with the relations among large-scale social structures and institutions
His emphasis was on order, dynamic equilibrium (as in functionalist approaches generally)
- Social System
- Cultural System
- Personality System
Social change is orderly, evolutionary
C. Wright Mills – Radical Sociology in
Born in
PhD at the
Dies of his fourth heart attack at age 45, 3 marriages with one child from each, many affairs
Outsider in many ways, had trouble with his professional relationships as well
He was at odds with American society
Challenged Talcott Parsons (Structural Functionalist), but also Paul Lazarsfeld (rememberd for his contributions to sociological methodology)
Ideas
Marx was either reviled or ignored in American sociology, although there were exceptions, and C. Wright Mills was one of the most notable
Not a sophisticated Marxist, not very familiar with Marx’s ideas
He was a rare American “radical sociologist” though, meaning he was a
Class theorist, a power theorist
“White Collar” – analyzed the new occupational category of white-collar workers
“The Power Elite” – showed how
This is a “political economy” that Mills refers to as the “triangle of power”
Power in the
Since WWII, business and government have become increasingly unified—think of Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex”
The men of the power elite come from similar social and educational backgrounds, similar careers and styles of life
These men move easily between the three points of the triangle
Mills argued that competing interests and competition only occurred among members of the middle class, and middle-sized enterprises (e.g. labor unions and political parties—these change, but the structure of power and privilege does not).
At the “commanding heights” of the economy, military, and government, there is unity and class self-interest.
Social revolts against this system—the agrarian revolt of the 1890s, the small-business revolt since the 1880s, the labor revolt of the 1930s—have all failed to change anything (also the Reagan revolution in the 1980s, the Republican Revolution in the 1990s,
Mills argues that intellectuals need to openly discuss and debate the structures of power in American society.
Separation of the civil service from corporate interests.
Free associations of communities, families, smaller groups should be able to influence the national political economy.
“The Sociological Imagination” (1959) (damning critique of Parsons)
Feminism has a long and rich history in the
A. Gender Inequality
In the 19th century, women were legally analogous to children
Today, worldwide, women are ½ the population but own a small fraction of the world’s land and property, make a fraction of the income of men, they are limited in terms of their educational and career opportunities, denied legal rights (such as voting rights), and suffer from spouse abuse and other forms of abuse
B. Women and Sociological Theory
As sociology developed, women naturally became interested in trying to explain gender inequality (just as Marx wanted to explain class inequality, and DuBois the “color line”)
Women, however, were generally denied opportunities for higher education, and certainly for careers in academia
From a prominent
Deeply depressed after her marriage and the birth of her daughter. Divorced husband, gave her blessing to his remarry her close friend and raise her daughter.
Gilman’s depression lifted when she was able to work, unencumbered by family responsibilities.
Gave lectures around the
Secured her reputation in feminist circles when she published Women and Economics (1898)
Advocated women’s economic independence from men
Public day care
Cooperative kitchens
Wanted peaceful socialism
Argued that the nuclear family was dysfunctional for women. It was more natural for “women’s work” (cooking, cleaning, childrearing) to be done communally, as was the case in most human societies, rather than alone and isolated in the home.
The traditional family structure is inherently exploitative—women work, but are not paid.
Gender inequality is a product of socialization in the family, not inherent biological differences.
Girls and boys learn their gender (not sex) by dressing differently, being praised and scolded for different things.
And yet, she thought that men and women were innately different. Because of evolution, women are antiselfish, they want to love, to nurture. Men are competitive, want to fight, take control.
There were racist sections of her writings, and she seemed to be speaking mainly for white women. She was against slavery and the oppression of African-Americans, and genocide and oppression of Native Americans, though.
D. Contemporary Feminist Theory
Feminist theory today has taken a “postmodern” turn:
Feminism against sociology: some feminist theorists are highly critical of sociology because of its male-centeredness, blindness to women
Feminism against science: view of science as a masculine, dominating enterprise
Feminism against globalization and neo-liberalism (more expressly political): the structure of the world economic system is inherently exploitative of women: e.g. sex slaves, wage inequality, poor health care and day care for immigrant working women
Sociology of the Arts and Popular Culture Review Sheet for Final Exam
Final Exam Review Sheet
Soc 4260
Sociology of the Arts and Popular Culture
Gabe Ignatow
Production perspective
Critical Theory
Culture Industry
Culture Industries
Reception Studies
Passive Audience
“narcotized” audiences
Dominant reading
Oppositional reading
Nationalism
Reflexive interpretation
“Watching
Ien Ang
Ironic stance
Katz and Liebes
Gatekeepers
Sponsors
Patrons
Genres
Supply-side explanations
Demand-side explanations
Legal changes
Technological changes
45 rpm record
Paul DiMaggio
Mass culture theory
Cultural conservatives
Cultural radicals
Cultural homogenization
Free market assumption
Monopoly assumption
Mass culture model
Niche model
Entrepreneurial brokers
Centralized brokers
Reflection theory
Origins of the novel
Wendy Griswold
American character and the American novel
Highbrows
Snobs
Omnivores
Pop Culture Lecture Notes for Final Exam Wed Dec 12 10:30am
The Sociology of Culture and Cultural Production
Philip Smith, 167-182
Richard Peterson, Why 1955? Explaining the Advent of Rock Music (in reader)
This is a different area of cultural studies from what we have seen so far in this course, although it resembles in some ways Horkheimer and Adorno’s Critical Theory, as it is focused on cultural products including mass media and popular culture—music, films, television, novels etc.
We can call this perspective the production perspective
Less abstract than much of the theory we have dealt with so far, less general, philosophical
More concrete
This is good and bad, depending on your appetite for social and cultural theory, which can be visionary, imaginative, and sometimes difficult
The Production Perspective is a current approach; that is people are using it and developing it today to study things they care about
The production perspective covers several fields, including communications, media studies, and sociology
When we talk about culture here, we are talking about
Culture as an institutional sphere devoted to the making of meaning
i.e. art, music, theater, fashion, literature, religion, the media, education
This definition is from William Sewell, from the start of the course
So culture here is not values or ideas or beliefs or rituals or identities (as in cultural studies and other areas)
In the production perspective scholars study the culture industries, although they do so more carefully than Horkheimer and Adorno ever did
RECEPTION STUDIES
Remember how Horkheimer and Adorno imagined audiences, i.e. the reception of culture…?
For Critical Theorists, audiences are basically passive, “narcotized” – they accept whatever popular cultural products are spoon-fed to them
We still see evidence of this kind of Marx-ish understanding of reception in the British Cultural Studies tradition
you will remember the ideas of dominant reading and oppositional reading
People actually go out and study how people receive mass media, for example how people from different class backgrounds interpret television shows that are very nationalistic
How people can creatively and reflexively interpret cultural products
How people actually watch TV or read in their everyday lives
Together, these sorts of studies lead us to question Critical Theory’s model of the passive consumer
e.g. “Watching Dallas”
On the other, cultural critics often regarded
e.g. in 1983 Jack Lang, the French Minister of Culture, proclaimed
Since Horkheimer and Adorno, and before them as well, “professional intellectuals” have been dismissive of American-style consumer culture. Many analysts see popular culture as not just entertainment. They think it has obvious, manipulative ideological effects.
Ien Ang studied the reception of
So reactions in
Katz and Liebes, two American-Israeli social scientists, studied the reception of
Israeli Arabs
New immigrants from
Immigrants from
Kibbutzniks
These were compared to similar groups in
They watched the show, then participated in an “open structured” discussion and filled out questionnaires.
They found that people interpreted the show in very different ways, sometimes incorrectly.
Some of the Moroccan Jews claimed that the show made them more proud of their Jewish identity and their moral standards (as compared with the
They conclude that the discourses of ordinary people about
Also we learn to think carefully about the “mass” audience, which is not as uniform in its interpretations and the way cultural products are consumed as some theories suggest
How do people interpret the Coca Cola/Turkey commercial? How do people in Turkey watch and interpret MTV?
The Production of Culture
The “production perspective”
Alternative to strict market-based accounts of culture industries
H&A: the “culture industry” (singular)—shapes our knowledge and interpretation of current events, other cultures, international opinion of the
So much for cultural reception studies.
Why do people watch certain movies, certain kinds of movies, with certain themes?
Why are certain forms of music, television, film, and literature popular in certain places at certain times?
Where do museums come from? Concert halls? Libraries? Monuments? War memorials?
Sociologists discuss certain categories of people: gatekeepers and sponsors
Gatekeepers are taste-makers who work within and outside corporations to separate out certain cultural products (films, bands, songs, actors, television shows) because they believe they will become popular and profitable. These people work as agents, and for media corporations. They have to be hip, on the cutting edge of fashions.
Sponsors are wealthy and powerful individuals and organizations who provide resources (money, social and political connections) to promote certain cultural products and projects (museums, orchestras, theatres) that suit their tastes and interests. Sponsors include wealthy patrons, municipal governments, and even states.
At different times, due to social, technological and economic changes, different networks of sponsors and gatekeepers can emerge, leading to cultural changes and the popularization of new genres of art and music (e.g. impressionist painting in the early 19th century, which was initially rejected).
Richard Peterson, Why 1955? Explaining the Advent of Rock Music
Rock music, or some form of it, is a nearly universal form of music. Where did it come from? Why? And why did it begin in 1955? If we are interested in these sorts of questions, a production of culture perspective can be very useful, as it is very concrete, pointing to specific social, economic, and technological processes that shape what we listen to, eat, and watch.
In 1955 a rock aesthetic replaced the jazz aesthetic in American popular music
Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Tony Bennett, Perry Como à Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, and many more
Can we use a supply side explanation to account for this change? That is, people like Elvis Presley came and revolutionized the music scene?
But at any given time there are many creative, special talents, most of whom do not get recognized
What about a demand side explanation? That is, at some points in time there are major demographic changes, e.g. more young people, and they demand different kinds of music and other cultural products that reflect their own lives, not the lives of their parents’ generation. People want music that speaks to them.
In the case of rock music, the oldest of the baby-boomers was only 9 years old in 1955.
Richard Peterson argues that it was changes in the commercial culture industry itself that led to the popularity of rock music. These changes were legal and technological and business changes.
1909 “United States Copyright Law”—protected artists from sheet-music companies
ASCAP—American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers—formed to collect royalties from public performances—dominant by 1930s
As late as 1950 an oligopoly of only 18 music publishers controlled all the music which could reach the public ear. Everything.
The ASCAP oligopoly produced safe, smooth, melodic music with muted jazz rhythms and harmonies.
The work of black musicians in the blues, jazz, and r&b and later soul was excluded, as was Latin and country music. These musical forms were only for local audiences, and were not national.
In 1939 BMI, a new licensing agency, was formed by radio networks, but could not induce publishers and songwriters to defect from ASCAP. So instead, they began signing black, Latin, and country music singers and songwriters.
ASCAP, the musical oligarchy, failed to come to terms with radio networks over licensing fees in 1939, so these networks turned to BMI and began to provide exposure to black, Latin, and country music, although change was slow and rock had not yet been invented.
Technology and Patent Law
Deal between two brokered by government
RCA small disks are durable, can be shipped by mail, hold singles, allowed for musical experimentation
1947—FCC approves more broadcasting stations
Popularization of TV and transistor radio—cheaply made by Japanese—encourages “Top 40” radio format
Paul DiMaggio, Market Structure, the Creative Process, and Popular Culture (in reader)
Here we have a more general article presenting ways of theorizing popular culture, and contrasting these to purely economic approaches and other approaches. This is typical of economic sociology, another area in which Paul DiMaggio is active.
He is generally concerned with the quality of cultural products available to the public. This informs his research on museums and other cultural institutions.
Discusses “mass society” and “mass culture” arguments about popular culture, which like Critical Theory itself presume a decline in the quality of cultural products available to, in this case, Americans
abundance, diversity, vitality à homogeneity, blandness, triviality
rationalization, individualization and alienation, creation of big national markets and homogeneous tastes and preferences
Mass culture is criticized by both cultural conservatives and radicals
conservatives: mass culture uses sex and violence to make money (the lowest common denominator), does not respect traditional religious values
radicals argue that elites create bland, dumb mass culture products to encourage people to consume uncritically
e.g. Critical Theory, Habermas and the “colonization of the life world”
Innovation becomes rare as market forces rule: cultural products must appeal to the lowest common denominator, base urges…and large markets
DiMaggio argues that Mass Culture theories rest on one of two simplistic economic assumptions
free market assumption: what the public wants, the public will get (conservative)
monopoly assumption: a few organizations control cultural production and dictate taste (radical)
But there’s absolutely nothing concrete about these sorts of assumptions, and this is where a bit of sociological realism is needed. Real cultural products (books, movies, television programs, music) are produced by for-profit organizations that face the constraints of the market. Some are produced by not-for-profit organizations that face other constraints and pressures.
But, then again, some culture industries seem to follow the mass culture model. Others seem to follow a niche or specialization model.
books, records, films, television programs
versus
television programs, mass-circulation magazines, school textbooks, mass-market paperback novels
What determines the form of particular culture industries, and the degree of creativity they allow artists?
DiMaggio follows Peterson and others in arguing that degree of oligopoly in a culture industry is the key to understanding its degree of creativity and innovation versus homogeneity
DiMaggio wants to know if this is true for the culture industries as a whole, not just for popular music
Makes a few assumptions
Managers in culture industries want to create predictability, reduce uncertainty
Latent Demand for a diverse range of cultural products
Innovation comes from below (from artists), is not really encouraged by culture industry bureaucracies
So he argues that managers in culture industries want to control markets, to prevent competitors from entering them, and to control creative talent so that they create cultural products in a regular, predictable, efficient way
So American television executives (only three networks) had been able to control their industry for a long time (until cable and satellite TV), while the recording industry has had uneven success at doing this
Brokerage Systems of Administration
Brokers – essentially agents who represent artists to corporations, and corporations to artists, but generally work for the corporation
Entrepreneurial Brokers – brokers do not work for culture industry firms
Centralized Brokers – network television, textbooks
See Table on p. 160
DiMaggio finds that, generally, culture industries have become less concentrated over the last few decades due partly to technology (cable and satellite TV, CDs, DVDs) and also to demographic specialization.
The Critical Theory “nightmare” of cultural homogenization is probably unfounded.
Wendy Griswold, American Character and the American Novel (in reader)
She addresses literary theory, in particular the assumption, broadly held, that literature (and cultural products generally) reflect changes in society. So to understand history or modern society, one can learn a lot by studying changes in cultural products like art, literature, and music.
Like DiMaggio’s analysis of the claims of Critical Theory and other cultural critics (conservative and radical), Griswold’s analysis is sociologically realistic and, in a sense, deflating
We can begin by wondering where the novel form came from in the first place, how and why it became so popular.
Popular novels were a product, in part, of the rise of the British middle class in the 18th century, and especially of housewives who could not read Latin and were not interested in poetry, but who were literate in English and wanted entertainment.
18th century was also a time of great interest in the human personality.
Also the rise of booksellers (rather than wealthy patrons) who paid authors by the number of pages.
The result is the novel, which is not too hard to read, devoted to the individual personality and character, and to topics of interest to middle class women.
But nineteenth century American novels are not like this. They are usuallyabou men or boys fleeing society, having adventures in the wilderness far from women (Huckleberry Finn, Moby Dick, Last of the Mohicans, Red Badge of Courage. Why?
Something about the “American character”? Something about the national psyche? Puritan morality?
Wendy Griswold did a sociological study. She took a random sample of American novels published from 1876-1910.
She hypothesized that overall, the content of these novels would not be so different from that of European novels, because European critics tended to focus on what made American novels unique and ignored those that looked a lot like European novels.
Then she wanted to find economic, legal, organizational factors that could explain the uniqueness of American novels. She finds this in copyright law, which allowed legal piracy (copying and selling) of novels by foreign writers until the late 19th century (1891). Publishers made huge profits this way (how could they not?)
Griswold hypothesizes that American novels will be different from European novels until 1891 (because until then they needed to be unique to sell well), but afterward they would become more conventional, concerned with love, marriage, money, morality etc. This is just what she found.
For example, in the earlier period American novels were much more likely than European novels to depict social mobility.
In the earlier period American novels were much more likely to have middle class protagonists, while European novelists had upper class protagonists.
Social reform (prison reform, temperance, treatment of women, cruelty to animals) was more prominent in American novels in the first period, less so in the second period.
American novels were more likely to be set in small towns in the first period.
American novels were more likely to be humorous in the first period.
All of this supports a sociological perspective, in particular a production of culture perspective, on the novel.
Snobs and Cultural Omnivores
Richard Peterson and Roger Kern, "Changing Highbrow Tastes: From Snob to Omnivore"
When we read Bourdieu, we may sense that he’s not entirely right when it comes to the contemporary scene. Do ambitious people really sip wine, go to museums, etc to lift their status and distinguish themselves from others?
Isn’t that all a bit too Parisian, and too old?
Peterson and Kern discuss why this “snob model” is right for certain locations and certain historical periods, such as the late 19th century in the
Anglo-Saxons wanted to distinguish themselves from recent immigrants from
Sociologists interested in the arts, media, taste, status, high culture and so forth sometimes refer to Bourdieu’s approach as the “snob model”
But the snob model does not seem to capture the tastes and interests of elites in
Rich white suburban teenagers listen to rap music. College students listen to world music, Latin music, Afro-Caribbean, rap, popular music.
P&K discuss highbrows, snobs, and omnivores.
Highbrows – like elite culture – classical music and opera
Snobs – highbrows who do not participate in lowbrow (cultures of poor marginal groups, such as blacks, youth, isolated rural people) or middlebrow (commercial, mass cultural) activities
– a perfect snob refuses to engage in any lowbrow or middlebrow activities
these are very rare in the
you could probably find a few in
Omnivores – enjoy a wide range of lowbrow and middlebrow cultural activities
Remember Bethany Bryson’s article on Musical Dislikes -- patterned tolerance and multicultural capital
P&K find that “omnivorousness is replacing snobbishness”
Omnivores do not like everything, but they are open to appreciating everything
In a way it is opposed to snobbishness, which is based on rigid rules of exclusion
Discriminating omnivorousness replacing snobbishness reflects multiculturalism and relativism in society over ethnocentrism
Omnivores appreciate music differently than other people. They do not identify with it.
Why the shift from snobbishness and to omnivorousness
devaluation of snobbishness because of widespread availability of highbrow culture in the media
rising education levels
geographic migration and social class mobility have mixed people holding different tastes
mass media presents lots of cultural materials to many people
value change from group prejudice, supported by racist social science, to tolerance and diversity
art world change from 19th century European scene, where theorists in the European Royal Academies believed that there were absolute standards of beauty and vulgarity
This consensus was swept away by market forces and aesthetic entrepreneurs in the 20th century (impressionists, Picasso, expressionists, minimalists, postmodernists)
Obviously the value of art was a product of its social circumstances, not of the art itself
generational politics Youth culture has become a viable alternative to “adult” culture
globalization and new elites for whom inclusion and omnivorous is probably a more useful way to create distinction than exclusion and snobbishness
Older Blogs
-
►
2009
(51)
-
►
Apr 2009
(13)
- SOC 4260 Global Society Lecture Notes for Final Ex...
- SOC 4000 Intro Theory Lecture Notes for Final Exam...
- Soc 4000: Intro to Sociological Theory: Review She...
- SOC 4260 Global Society Final Exam Review Sheet
- SOC 4000: Your professor's favorite theorists, res...
- SOC 4000: "Role Model"
- SOC 4260: "World Falls for American Media, Even as...
- SOC 4260: Global Society: "A theme park for the Ho...
- SOC 4260 Global Society: Americanization of the Ho...
- SOC 4000: So you think graduate school is the road...
- France: The Precarious Generation
- Hats Off to France
- SOC 4260: Understanding Anti-Americanism
-
►
Feb 2009
(7)
- 4260 and 5260/6500: Urbanization and Endangered La...
- SOC 4000 Lecture Notes for Midterm #1
- SOC 4260: 4 items from the review sheet you don't ...
- SOC 4000 Review Sheet Exam 1
- SOC 4260 Global Society Exam #1 Review Sheet
- 4260: The syllabus has been slightly revised
- 4260 Global Society: The Chili Habit
-
►
Apr 2009
(13)
