![]() ![]() Also, I second u/Really_Cool_Noodle tips and reframing of your question the idea of comparing different schools of thought, even if it does give you more work, is also a good idea. I understand if someone does work with it on their undergrad, but when you go further on your studies it's inevitable that you see that it's such a limited representation (and specifically an American Doxa which is hardly going to be seen in other national fields) of our field that it doesn't help us much in our work.īut, still, OP, you should really feel free to use whatever you want, and to really understand it as a part of your intellectual journey: it's not because you're using functionalism on your present study that you're bound to use it forever (after all, our intellectual positions change all the time, and it's good to have a wide knowledge of diverse theories). That idea of a dispute between the theory of conflict x functionalism, as some Americans defend, is such an old debate, reproduced through textbooks, that I really don't believe it's a good framework to work with. So, even if we recognize the importance of these authors to the formation of our field, it's pretty clear nowadays that, at the same time that nobody can get away from all principles of structural functionalism (as analyzing social facts, how humans interact and reproduce their social practices, etc.), we also can't be restricted to it because of the reasons already talked about here. Honestly, I believe that there are lots of other paradigms that work with the cultural perspective and understand better sets of values and social practices than structural functionalism, as symbolic interactionism, a wide array of anthropology, genetic structuralism, comprehensive sociology (Weber), etc., but I also think that's part of our "socialization of sociologists" to, inevitably, deal with structural functionalism, especially because it gives you some sort of "base" to understand better the former paradigms that I cited. pdf and other download-ing links with the filetype. Got a question that doesn't quite fit /r/sociology? Ask the larger Social Sciences community at /r/asksocialscience. Not a sociologist? We welcome your participation, but users just spitballing or pushing an ideology may be banned to maintain standards of discourse. An online community of sociology enthusiasts is not a representative sample for pretty much anything, and as a result most surveys are not appropriate here: we are not going to help you do bad research. As above, we're not really here to help you do your homework, which is why we ask for your own content included and the actual standards are subjective. If you feel you’re the latter rather than the former, please don’t be surprised if we don’t agree.įoster discussion - aim to use postings as a source and have discussion in the comments, if the article particularly slanted or ideologically bent, this cuts off discussion: try submitting source material instead and include your preferred interpretation in the comments. There’s a lot of youtube channels, bloggers, and authors deserving of attention. Videos & blogs - context up front: there are a lot of very superficial “sociology” posts used more to promote a youtube channel, blogger, or author. Theory, content, and book reviews - need to add significant depth, context, or in-field relevance or critique of an established or topical work reviews should be used to grow knowledge, not promote a work, a reviewer, or an institution: the primary content needs to exist in the submission, the submission should not be urging the reader to ‘read more at _’ or ‘see more in my upcoming book, _’. Simply explaining an event as 'social behaviour' is not meeting a high-enough bar. Sociological interpretations may need to examine issue via multiple lenses or theories, for instance the “interpretation” should not be aiming to push a specific narrative or viewpoint. Some news around Sociology may be ok, but consider if all or most references to sociology could be changed to any other field and the core of the article would still make sense, it’s probably not sociological enough.Ĭurrent events - sociological explanation or exploration, focus again on the sociology more than the event itself. Sociological focus & content - the sociological thought needs to be primary focus. ![]() Having a question related to the topic is rarely sufficient. We are happy to talk Sociology with anyone, but we're not here to pad your reading list or do your homework for you. ![]() We ask that posts contain actual sociological content. ![]() For those interested in the study of groups, society, culture, social interactions, etc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |