Sociology

[[Image:People3.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Social interactions of people and their consequences are the subject of sociology studies. Here we see people engaged in various social actions on the stairs of the social institution of Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.]] Sociology is the study of the social lifes of humans, groups, and society, sometimes defined as the study of social interactions. It is a relatively new academic discipline that evolved in the early 19th century. It concerns itself with the Social rule and Process that bind and separate people not only as individuals, but as members of Association, Group (sociology), and Institution. Sociology is interested in our behavior as social beings; thus the sociological field of interest ranges from the analysis of short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of globalization. In a broad sense, sociology is the scientific study of social groups, the entities through which humans move throughout their lives. The results of sociological research aid educators, lawmakers, administrators, and others interested in resolving social problems and formulating public policy. Most sociologists work in one or more specialties, such as social organization, social stratification, and social mobility; racial and ethnic relations; education; Sociology of the family; social psychology; urban sociology, rural sociology, political sociology, and comparative sociology; sex roles and relations; demography; gerontology; criminology; and sociological practice. ==History== ''Main Article: History of sociology'' Sociology is a relatively new academic discipline among other Social sciencess including economics, political science, anthropology, history, and psychology. The ideas behind it, however, have a long history and can trace their origins to a mixture of common human knowledge and philosophy. Sociology as a scientific discipline emerged in the early 19th century as an academic response to the challenge of modernity: as the world was becoming smaller and more integrated, people's experience of the world was increasingly atomized and dispersed. Sociologists hoped not only to understand what held social groups together, but also to develop an antidote to social disintegration. [[Image:auguste_Comte.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Auguste Comte, who coined the term ''sociology'']] The term "sociology" was coined by Auguste Comte in 1838 from Latin ''socius'' (companion, associate) and greek language ''logia'' (study of, speech). Comte hoped to unify all studies of humankind--including history, psychology and economics. His own sociological scheme was typical of the 19th century; he believed all human life had passed through the same distinct historical stages and that, if one could grasp this progress, one could prescribe the remedies for social ills. The first book with the term 'sociology' in its title was written in the mid-19th century by the English philosopher Herbert Spencer. In the United States, the discipline was taught by its name for the first time at the University of Kansas, Lawrence in 1890 under the course title ''Elements of Sociology'' (the oldest continuing sociology course in America and the ''Department of History and Sociology'' was established in 1891 [http://www.news.ku.edu/2005/June/June15/sociology.shtml]) and the first full fledged independent university department of sociology in the United States was established in 1892 at the University of Chicago by Albion W. Small, who in 1895 founded the American Journal of Sociology [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJS/home.html]. The first European department of sociology was founded in 1895 at the University of Bordeaux by �mile Durkheim, founder of Ann�e Sociologique (1896). In 1919 a sociology department was established in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich by Max Weber and in 1920 in Poland by Florian Znaniecki. The first sociology departments in the United Kingdom were founded after the Second World War. [[Image:Max Weber.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Max Weber]] International cooperation in sociology began in 1893 when Rene Worms founded the small Institut International de Sociologie that was eclipsed by the much larger International Sociologist Association [http://www.ucm.es/info/isa/] starting in 1949 (ISA). In 1905 the American Sociological Association, the world's largest association of professional sociologists, was founded. Other "classical" theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Karl Marx, Ferdinand Toennies, �mile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, and Max Weber. Like Comte, none of these sociologists thought of themselves as just "sociologists". In particular, their works address religion, education, economics, psychology, ethics, philosophy, and theology. With the exception of Marx, their most enduring influence has been on sociology, and it is in this field that their theories are still considered most applicable. [[Image:Kmarx.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Karl Marx]] Early sociological studies considered the field to be similar to the natural sciences like physics or biology. As a result, many researchers argued that the methods and methodology used in the 'hard' sciences were perfectly suited for use in the study of sociology. The effect of employing the scientific method and stressing empiricism was the distinction of sociology from theology, philosophy, and metaphysics. This also resulted in sociology being recognized as an empirical science. This early sociological approach, supported by August Comte, led to Positivism#Social_Science, a methodological approach based on sociological naturalism. However, as early as the 19th century positivist and naturalist approaches to studying social life were questioned by scientists like Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert, who argued that the natural world differs from the social world, as human society has unique aspects like meanings, symbols, rules, norms, and values. These elements of society result in human cultures. This view was further developed by Max Weber, who introduced antipositivism (humanistic sociology). According to this view, which is closely related to antinaturalism, sociological research must concentrate on humans and their cultural values. This has led to some controversy on how one can draw the line between subjective and objective research and also influenced hermeneutical studies. ==The science of sociology== Sociologists study society and social behavior by examining the groups and social institutions people form, as well as various social, religious, political, and business organizations. They also study the behavior of, and social interaction among, groups, trace their origin and growth, and analyze the influence of group activity on individual members. Sociologists are concerned with the characteristics of group (sociology)s, organizations, and institutions; the ways individuals are affected by each other and by the groups to which they belong; and the effect of social traits such as sex, age, or race on a person’s daily life. The results of sociological research aid educators, lawmakers, administrators, and others interested in resolving social problems and formulating public policy. Most sociologists work in one or more specialties, such as social organization, social stratification, and social mobility; racial and ethnic relations; education; Sociology of the family; social psychology; urban sociology, rural sociology, political sociology, and comparative sociology; sex roles and relations; demography; gerontology; criminology; and sociological practice. Although sociology emerged in large part from Comte's conviction that sociology eventually would subsume all other areas of scientific inquiry, in the end, sociology did not replace the other sciences. Instead, sociology came to be identified with the other social sciences (i.e., psychology, economics, etc.). Today, sociology studies humankind's organizations, social institutions and their social interactions, largely employing a comparative method. The discipline has concentrated particularly on the organization of complex industrial society. Recent sociologists, taking cues from anthropologists, have noted the "Western emphasis" of the field. In response, many sociology departments around the world are encouraging multi-cultural and multi-national studies. Today, sociologists research macro-social structures that organize society, such as race or ethnicity, social class, gender roles, and institutions such as the family; social processes that represent deviation from, or the breakdown of, these structures, including crime and divorce; and micro-processes such as interpersonal interactions and the socialization of individuals. Sociologists often rely on quantitative methods of social research to describe large patterns in social relationships and in order to develop models that can help predict social change. Other branches of sociology believe that qualitative methods - such as focused interviews, group discussions and ethnography methods - allow for a better understanding of social processes. Some sociologists argue for a middle ground that sees quantitative and qualitative approaches as complementary. Results from one approach can fill gaps in the other approach. For example, quantitative methods could describe large or general patterns while qualitative approaches could help to understand how individuals understand those patterns. ===Social theory=== ''Main article: social theory'' Social theory is often considered a branch of sociology that is less concerned with explaining patterns of social life using the scientific method and more concerned with analyzing macro social structures using theoretical frameworks. Because of this, social theorists are often suspicious or critical of sociologists who model their work off of the successful �objective� natural sciences like physics or chemistry. Often, however, science-based research can and will complement an underlying social theory. For instance, statistical research grounded in the scientific method that shows a severe income disparity between women and men performing the same occupation can complement a social theory such as either feminism or patriarchy. Extremely critical theorists, such as deconstructionists or postmodernists, may argue that any type of research or method is inherently flawed while other theorists prefer to describe themselves as social theorists because they are either critical of the sociological community or were not trained as sociologists. Many times, however, social theory is defined as such because the social reality it describes is so overarching as to be unprovable. The social theories of modernity or anarchy might be two examples of this. In general, sociology has an appeal because it takes the focus away from the individual (which is how most humans look at the world) and focuses it on the social forces which control our lives. This sociological insight (or sociological imagination) has through the years appealed to students and others dissatisfied with the status quo because it carries the assumption that societal structures and patterns are either random, arbitrary or controlled by specific powerful groups -- thus implying the possibilty of change. This has a particular appeal to champions of the underdog, the dispossesed, and/or those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder because it implies that their position in society is undeserved and/or the result of oppression. ===Social research methods=== ''Main article: social research'' There are several main methods that sociologists use to gather empirical evidence, which include questionnaire, interview, participant observation, and planning statistical research. The problem with all of these approaches is that they are all based on what theoretical position the researcher adopts to explain and understand the society he sees in front of him. If he is a functionalist like �mile Durkheim, he is likely to interpret everything in terms of large-scale social structures. If he is a symbolic interactionism, he is likely to concentrate on the way people understand one another. If he is a Marxist, or a neo-Marxist, he is likely to interpret everything through the grid of class struggle and power relations. Phenomenologists tend to think that there is only the way in which people construct their meanings of reality, and nothing else. One of the real problems is that sociologists argue that only one theoretical approach is the "right" one, and it is theirs. In practice, sociologists often tend to mix and match different approaches and methodologies, since each method produces particular types of data. The Internet is of interest for sociologists in three ways: as a tool for social research, for example, in using online questionnaire instead of paper ones, as a discussion platform, and as a research topic. Sociology of the Internet in the last sense includes analysis of online communities (e.g. as found in newsgroups), virtual communities and Virtual World organisational change catalysed through new media like the Internet, and societal change at-large in the transformation from industrial society to informational society (or to information society). ===Sociology and other social sciences=== In the early 20th century, sociologists and psychologists who conducted research in non-industrial societies contributed to the development of anthropology. It should be noted, however, that anthropologists also conducted research in industrial societies. Today sociology and anthropology are better contrasted according to different theoretical concerns and methods rather than objects of study. Sociobiology is a relatively new field to branch from both the sociology and biology disciplines. Although the field once rapidly gained acceptance, it has remained highly controversial as it attempts to find ways in which social behavior and structures can be explained by evolutionary and biological processes. Sociobiologists are often criticized by sociologists for depending too greatly on the effects of genes in defining behavior. Sociobiologists often respond, however, by citing a complex relationship between nature and nurture. In this regard, sociobiology is closely related to anthropology, zoology, and evolutionary psychology. Nonetheless, by most in the discipline, its ideas are considered verboten. Some sociobiologists, such as Richard Machalek, call for the field of sociology to encompass the study of non-human societies along with human beings. Sociology has some links with social psychology, but the former is more interested in social structures and the latter in social behaviors. A distinction should be made between these and forensic studies within these disciplines, particularly where anatomy is involved. These latter studies might be better named as Forensic psychology. As shown by the work of Marx and others, economics is often influenced by sociological theories. ==Subfields of sociology== *Computational sociology *Environmental sociology *Interactionism also known as the ''social action theory'' and ''symbolic-interactionism'' *Economic development *Economic sociology *Feminist sociology *Functionalism (sociology) *Human ecology (sometimes included into sociology proper) *Industrial sociology also known as ''sociology of industrial relations'' or ''sociology of work'' *Medical sociology *Political sociology also known as ''sociology of politics'' or ''sociology of the state'' *Program evaluation *Public sociology *Rural sociology *Social change also known as ''sociology of change'' *Social demography *Social inequality *Sociology of conflict also known as ''Conflict theory'' *Sociology of deviance *Sociology of disaster *Sociology of the family *Sociology of markets also known as ''behavioral finance'' *Sociology of religion *Sociology of science and technology *Urban sociology == See also == *List of sociology topics ==External links== * [http://www.thearda.com American Religion Data Archive] * [http://www.asanet.org/ American Sociological Association] * [http://www.anovasofie.net/vl/ Analysing and Overcoming the Sociological Fragmentation in Europe: European Virtual Library of Sociology] * [http://www.ku.edu/%7Esocdept/centuryofsoc.pdf A Century of Sociology at University of Kansas, by Alan Sica (Adobe Acrobat PDF file)] * [http://www.ucm.es/info/isa/ International Sociological Association] * [http://gsociology.icaap.org/methods/ Resources for methods in social research] * [http://www.sociologyprofessor.com/ Social theories and theorists] * [http://www.sociolog.com/ The Sociolog. Comprehensive Guide to Sociology] ==References== * John J. Macionis, Sociology (10th Edition), Prentice Hall, 2004, ISBN 0131849182 * Piotr Sztompka, Socjologia, Znak, 2002, ISBN 8324002189 * Stephen H. Aby, ''Sociology: A Guide to Reference and Information Sources''. 3rd edn. Littleton, CO, Libraries Unlimited Inc., 2005, ISBN 1563089475 ==More reading== * Robert A. Nisbet, ''The Sociological Tradition'', London, Heinemann Educational Books, 1967, ISBN 1560006676 * Evan Willis, ''The Sociological Quest: An introduction to the study of social life'', 3rd edn, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1996, ISBN 0813523672 Sociology fa:جامعه‌شناسی hi:समाज शास्त्र la:Sociologia lv:Socioloģija li:Sociologie ms:Sosiologi nds:Soziologie scn:Socioluggia simple:Sociology su:Sosiologi th:สังคมวิทยา

Sociology

==Older discussion== hey, help me please!!! i want to know the history of scientific sociology!!!! tnx... email me on sanosuke_04@yahool.com,, tnx.. I'd like to see some reference to sociology and the internet. Wiki's are a sociological phenomenon, and the co-ordination of anti-Iraq demonstrations accross the planet was internet dependent. The concept of communities online has been discussed elsewhere but these two aspects are newer. Rowena The sociology page seems to me rather messy -- most of it are links to special sociologies, sociologists or sociological schools and methods. Maybe w should clean it up and rewrite it majorly. In the present state it looks like sociology isn't a science, but rather a colourful conglomerate consisting of very different parts. I don't think that's right. --User:Tillwe ---- There might be good interdepartmental politics reasons within universities for promoting sociology as a science, but speaking as a sociologist myself, I'm of the view that 'colourful conglomerate consisting of very different parts' is a more apt description of sociology than is the term 'science'. To that extent the page reflects what it is. But in any case the page certainly looks much more informative than it did in November last year (when the above comment was made). I'm a relative latecomer to this page in any case, and I appreciate the way its developing (June 2003). (Olly). ---- I removed the recently added noosphere.cc link, because this seems to be one very special project ("integrative knowledge"), which could be classified as ''one'' sociological method if you take the category in a wide sense. I think it's better to use external links that link to sociology portals and source websites than to websites for special theories and methods. Otherwise, I think I could add a dozen or so websites linking to ''my'' pet theories. BTW: Top-adding or bottom-adding? --User:Tillwe 19:29 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC) ---- Removing these two paragraphs because (1) If ''I'' don't understand what they mean, there's no chance in hell an average layman will; and (2) they look a lot more personal than neutral reportage of the field. Mr. Clihor, please note that it is Wikipedia's policy ''not'' to include "original research", or to support unconventional theories except to report on their existence. We are an encyclopedia. The purpose of an article here is to give a layman a basic understanding of present knowledge in the field. If you want to write commentary, speculation, and original research, you should clearly mark it as such and keep it on second pages (for example "H. W. Clihor on Time") --User:Lee Daniel Crocker :However, in deference to Mr. Comte, Social Psychology, yet another discipline has embarked upon the study of how society's structure influences individuals and groups. Perhaps one of its founders, W.I. Thomas' definition of situational dynamics best describes how these varied disciplines might be related: He wrote: "If you define a situation as real, it is real to you in its consequences...however, your definition of a situation may be influenced by how others define the same situation." :This simple paradigm calls into question the four disciplines of Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, Social Psychology and Traditional psychology and how they relate to each other and to their various definitions of society. Perhaps they should be grouped into a single discipline called Cultural Sociology. (Which would include all four disciplines and certain studies within Economics, History, Political Science, Statistics and Chaos Theory.) ---- The topic :Situational Dynamics sounds interesting. Tell us more. --User:Ed Poor From the rest of the text submitted by Mr. Clihor over the day, he seems to be what we old hands on the net call a "mild psychoceramic"--i.e., a crackpot. I seriously doubt that anyone could learn anything useful from him. Let's not encourage him. --LDC I'm not sure to whom I am speaking. But as an "old hand" on the internet as well, crackpot seems derisive, deleterious and more than overtly limited in its most demonstrative attempt at true crtiticism. I guess name-calling is the last bastion of the uninformed. LDC overlooks the fact that multi-disciplinary studies of social dynamics and situational dynamics have been conducted for over a half century. Perhaps if LDC took at look at the collected topics of Social Psychology, Aggression Theory, Studies in Emotional Arousal, Cognitive Dissonance, Propoganda and for that matter a host of articles too numerous to mention the light of illumination might burn away an indifferent veneer. Please, if deletions are to occur at least have them available for peer review...by at least someone somewhere capable of making an intelligent decision. Further, the ceramic nature of pscychology is an interesting concept. (LOL). I hope we can continue this discourse with LDC and maybe come to some agreement upon which material is fodder for further dicussion, inclusion and who indeed may not be psychoceramic, but an "unschooled, or biolgically silent burro" of which other minds might glean a fitting demonstrative conclusion to LDC's interesting "criticisms". ==Sociology problem oriented?== Removed this: ''Sociology is a problem-oriented discipline. It examines actuall (sic) social problems such as racism, sexism, mostly in developed countires such as the United States'' for two reasons: (a) most of it is already covered above, and (b) the remainder is nonsense. Sociology is no more "problem oriented" than a host of other disciplines - psychology is an obviolus example, and less so than several (consider criminology). Of course, many sociologists ''are'' "problem oriented" - but saying this is one thing, saying that it is "a problem oriented discipline" is quite another. The two senses in which sociolgy might best be regarded as "problem oriented" are (a) insofar as it is a subject area often taught to aspiring social workers - but note that they themselves are not "sociologists", they are social workers with some sociological training alongside the training they had in several other areas - and (b) in the rather narrow historical sense that 19th & early 20th century functionalist sociology grew up in response to the twin problems of "how do we explain these massive social changes", and "how do we respond to the explanation offered by the conflict theorists (in particular, Marx)?" (Please excuse my very belated entry here. I did the edit and said "see talk", then got called away by work (the work I get paid for, I mean) for quite a few hours.) User:Tannin 08:03 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC) ==Needs work== SLR commented just now: ''rewrote the first paragraph; the rest sure needs work!'' Alas, he is absolutely right. For an entry with such a long edit history, this one is vapid, disjointed, and damn near useless. Some items to consider, in no particular order: 1: SLR, thankyou for providing that new introduction, no doubt at short notice and more-or-less off the top of your head. It's a vast improvement, but I'm afraid I'm going to take issue with it just the same. To me, it reads as a good short introduction to Durkheim and his followers. I don't think it applies nearly as well to Compte or Marx, and possibly not to Weber either. (But I am weak on Weber and wouldn't push that last thought strongly.) This comment notwithstanding, for the time being I think it's more important to concentrate on other areas, and come back to the intro when the rest of the entry hasd some shape and rigour. :You are welcome, and you are absolutely right about the limitations of what I wrote -- although I hope that it can still provide a working basis. I am not a sociologist, although I have a pretty good grasp of its history and current practice. I think the main limitation of what I wrote is that it reflects ''U.S.'' sociology. The article certainly needs at least a paragraph on "critical sociology" and "humanistic sociology" (I am thinking of Gouldner and C. Wright Mills and maybe Reisman) in the U.S. and "Cultural Studies" in Great Britain (I am thinking of Hall -- it seems to me that in the UK cultural studies = sociology + marx which is quite different from what the term means in the U.S.). But anyone outside the US should know that US sociology, regardless of its history, remains dominated by those two gifts of Durkheim, functionalism and quantitative methods. :Ideally, the article should indeed provide a solid history, including non-sociologist forbears like Compte and Marx; classic sociologists like Simmel, Durkheim, and Weber, as well as Schutz and Mead and their heirs (the fact is, Wikipedia just needs top-notch articles on these people; I myself have put a fair amount of work into the Marx article and am pretty satisfied, but I cannot speak to the others). The risk of such a history is that it can idealize what sociologists would like to think of themselves, or what they think sociology ought to be. Such an account, though valuable, ought to be balanced by a fair assessment of institutionalized sociology: what kind of sociological research must one do to get a job at a top institution? What kind of research gets big grants? Personally, I love Simmel, but how many graduate students (especially outside of the elite schools) read him? I love Giddens (at least, the early Giddens) and Garfinkel -- but how many graduate students these days are working within their respective projects? Who dominates the professional organizations? (Aren't these precisely the questions a sociologist would ask, if conducting a sociological study?) I am not the perfect person to do this, but this is nevertheless a good part of what I think the article should become and I hope others like Tannin can start filling in the gaps and reorganizing it. :I have some other scattered remarks but in the absence of anything else, I agree with everything Tannin writes here, User:Slrubenstein ::I don't know about US sociology, but I do know, that Marx, Simmel, Giddens and Garfinkel *are* read and used in sociology in continental Europe. Quantitative views and Durkheimianism isn't the whole of the world ... User:Tillwe 2: The list of branches is chaotic and needs structuring into coherence. Most of the entries on it are just empty links. I am inclined to put it here for now and replace it with a shorter list. (Better a little bit of information hat makes sense than a lot on info that makes nonsense.) User:210.21.221.178 10:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)Ed Nilges: I have tried to add some of the requested depth to the social theory section which I think was very superficial...while maintaining NPOV, by writing my change as a dialog between scientific sociology and "theory" which doesn't terminate in blows, and accusations of "cheese eater" and "nerd". I started by scare-quoting mainstream. Come on, guys, globalize. == Branches == *environmental sociology *economic sociology *functionalism ** Note: disambiguated version is functionalism (sociology) --User:Jerzy 06:05, 2004 Feb 10 (UTC) *human ecology *industrial sociology *interactionalism *social conflict theory *Micro Sociology *political sociology *rural sociology *social development *social engineering *social theory - explain social behavior in a few principles. *sociology of knowledge *sociology of religion *symbolic-interactionism *systems theory 3: I'm not sure what to make of the link to Human ecology. Does it belong here? Is the Human Ecology stub itself of any value? The Systems theory link is also questionable. The entry there is purely anthropological in content, and I've not stumbled across systems theory as a branch of sociology. ''Does'' it belong in the top-level sociology article? If so, where does it fit in? :I probably should have deleted this link, but not being a sociologist I wanted to give whoever wrote it the benefit of the doubt -- but I agree with you, User:Slrubenstein :: Systems theory is a major branch of sociology, at least in Germany (Niklas Luhmann), so it should stay here. (And the borderline between anthropology and sociology isn't that exact, either, but that is another issue). User:Tillwe 4: There is a crying need for entries on the major theoretical perspectives. They should be described briefly in the top-level article and the links should lead to solid, comprehensive entries, not what we have now, which is a confused stub with a mixture of information and misinformation; nothing at all; and a one-sentence stub. I think I have a half-finished replacement on my home machine for functionalism, if so, I'll try to knock it into enough shape to plug in later this weekend. Enough of my ranting for now. I've done a fair bit of cutting the ugly fat off the bones of this entry, I better go home to where my references are and start putting some healthy flesh on them instead (before someone reverts me for simply being destructive). User:Tannin 09:07 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC) --- :Hi all, I just joined Wikipedia. A comment about branches. One way to get a handle on branches is to look at the [http://www.asanet.org/sections/general.html American Sociological Association Section page]. They list many of the branches listed above, and others. Also look at the [http://www.ucm.es/info/isa/rc.htm International Sociological Assocation Research Committees]. Hope this helps. gene, April 20, 2004 User:gsociology === Re Human ecology === :: Re Human ecology -- that is, as far as I know, a scientific field or discipline that emerged in the wake of the formation of ecology / environmental sciences. It looks onto human beings as part of eco-systems (including built environment, industrial society) and trys to apply the principles of the science of ecology on the living being "human". So it is -- AFAIK, and a bit like sociobiology -- in so far similiar or related to sociology, that it looks onto the human being and its behavior/actions, but with a background rooted in natural science. I'll try to enhance the h.e. entry. -- User:Tillwe 15:30, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC) ==Some additions and changes== I added some sentences (e.g. qualitative branch), and I deleted the following, because it seems to me (and I am a studied sociologist ;-)) a rather minor and special issue, maybe valid for Durkheim, but not valid for sociology in general. :One noticeable point in sociology is it distinguishes ''troubles'' and ''issues''. In sociology, ''troubles'' occur in individual context. For example, the couple may divorce because of personal reasons such as having affiar. On the other hand, ''issues'' occur in social context. For example, the expansion of working hours may increase the divorce rate. Sociologists believe the increase of divorce rate is not explained by the personal matterns but by social context. If someone wants to put it back, I would rather like to hear an explanation, why this distinction is relevant for sociology at large. BTW: I don't think it's wrong -- but I do think it's not important at that place in that article. User:Tillwe 01:17 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC) : I agree, Tillwe. User:Tannin Tillwe, concerning systems theory -- I stand corrected; thansk for explaining it to me. As for the above passage, I myself have never heard of "troubles" and "issues" used this way. But I do think that the passage is trying to make an important point concerning what Mills called "the Sociological imagination" -- that the problems sociologists study are not individual or personal problems (although individuals may be aware of them, and may experience them personally) but rather social facts (yeah, quoting Durkheim, sorry) that can only be understood in terms of social processes and structures. I think this is a major issue that this article should develop. In part his is one way to distinguish sociology from psychology. But I think there is more at stake: have either of you seen ''Bowling for Columbine''? At one point Michael Moore suggests to the manager (or publicist) of a Lockheed Martin plant that one reason American teenagers may be so violent is because they see their parents come home at the end of the day from having spent all their labors making weapons. The manager says, "I don't see the connection." Now, maybe Moore is wrong and this relationship is not a good "explanation" for American violence, but it still seems to me that this is a good example of the sociological imagination that is of a ratehr different sort than saying children are just naturally agressive, or this particular child had an unhappy home life, or that child was picked on in school. This sociological shift in perspective is in my opinion one of its great contributions to society in general, so I'd like to see it developed. I am not a sociologist as such so I hesitate making further changes to the article -- but if either of you can relate to what I am saying, perhaps you can incorporate it into the article in layman's terms, and also provide something of an intellectual geneaology to link it to specific sociologists -- I do not think this is a specifically Durkheimian view (you can find examples of it in Compte and Marx, at least) and it should be presented first in an ecumenical way, then more specifically...User:Slrubenstein : Yes, you are making good sense, SLR. In a way, that is what sociology ''is''. I haven't forgotten my intention to expand this entry, just got distracted by various other matters over the weekend. (Something to do with having the attention span of a five-year-old in a lolly shop, no doubt.) User:Tannin ==Social Theory== Added section on social theory. It is probably controversial and, at least, needs grammatical and style editing. Also, it's location on that page is certainly not optimal, but couldn't think of better way to handle. User:Lunchboxhero ==Intro parapharsing Giddens== Added short intro paraphrasing Anthony Giddens ''Sociology'' (I only have the German translation, so if anyone has the English original, maybe s/he can improve the intro; what I was paraphrasing is the end of the first paragraph in chapter 1, Sociology: Problems and Perspective). -- User:Tillwe 15:24, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC) :"Social" makes more sense in English in place of "societal', which sounds redundant in the same phrase with "societies". Does it catch the German sense equally well? I've made that change, on the assumption it does. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 01:39, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) This is of value only if it is typical, so there's no point in sourcing it except on this talk page: :Anthony Giddens -- in his textbook ''Sociology'' -- defines sociology as the study of the societal lives of humans, groups and society. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 01:39, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :Uh, that's not that easy. I would say it is a fairly typical definiton (but then we can omit the "typical textbook" also), but on the other hand, every sociologist has it's own definition, so I would be happier with attribution (and maybe one or two other definitions from other textbooks, a la "Giddens says, sociology is ..., whereas ... defines sociology as the ..."). -- User:Tillwe 13:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Sounds to me like it could be interesting; plz show us more, either here or on the article. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 17:14, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :Seems to me a multi-person-project ;-) ... at the moment, I have the problem that I don't have that much time on my hands, and that I don't have that much textbooks on my hands (but in the university library, but see: time), and that most of the textbooks I could get access to are in German. So, English language sociologists etc., please look up in your textbooks how sociology is defined there, write it down here, and let us sort out the commons and the differences ... -- User:Tillwe 01:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- == Anthropology == What is the difference between Socio and Anthropology? I have read a simplistic view that anthro is for people different from the researcher and socio for people like the resarcher. == Franz Oppenheimer == A person using Wikipedia anonymously (IP address 217.188.*.*) is putting Franz Oppenheimer (by the way: the article about him still looks a bit like a babelfish translation) into the founding of sociology part of this article, and I'm putting him out. See some discussion about this User_talk:Tillwe#Franz_Oppenheimer. As far as I know, sociology today is pretty clear about the influence found even today of Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. One could probably add half a dozen more -- including Karl Mannheim, Ferdinand T�nnies, Joseph Schumpeter and maybe also Franz Oppenheimer -- but I think, to list only the three first mentioned classics gives a good and neutral view on the current sociological consensus about who were the important founders of the discipline with lasting influence. -- User:Tillwe | User_talk:tillwe 15:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) P.S.: http://agso.uni-graz.at/lexikon/klassiker/00cont/00_alp.htm#p shows (in German language) information about what they consider "50 most important classics" of sociology. Oppenheimer isn't included. -- User:Tillwe | User_talk:tillwe 15:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) * There is times in history were the "current consensus" reflects nothing more than the inertia of the academic world. This is why Franz Oppenheimer, one of the founding fathers and leader of german Frankfurt School has been put to the archive. Qui bono? One can be "important" or "fundamental". Oppenheimer was the all known and widely published fundamental thinker of sociology. Since todays fragemented sociology is one the verge of collapse, finding back to its roots will be the first step to refactor everything into a universal social science. * Speaking of the courageous scientists of today, they are in no need to refer to any type of "hit lists" published by someone because they can use the original data provided over the internet and think independent. Hit lists are mindclosers. Mindclosers! The artist John Lennon is "fundamental" to the music world even though he's not in the pop charts of today. * I would sincerely recommend to open the spectrum and use all the possibilities provided. As Henri Bergson points out, there is far more within the possible but unknown than within the known. If there is a dozen more, go ahead categorize and paste them! We owe this to all of our predecessors. As in technological research (to repair the enviromental damages) we should not drop any piece of sociological knowlegde (to overcome the social diseases) created. *Why isn't Franz Oppenheimer included in the pop charts of todays important sociologists? This is a question of sociological thought itsself! This leads to scientific research dedicated to truth. You are invited to find out. Compared to the research fellows decades ago, you have no ecxuse;) Its all on the web. :Anonymous one, I agree with your last point: "Why isn't Franz Oppenheimer ... This leads to scientific research dedicated to truth." This may be the case, even if I don't believe in truth. But it points to one important issue: obviously you agree that the "current consensus" of sociology doesn't give Oppenheimer the importance he maybe deserves, and that it would need research to find out about the whys and whos of this phenomenon. But this means, that Wikipedia, which aims at giving a neutral view of mainstream reality (to say it bluntly), isn't the best place to fight for the inclusion of Oppenheimer in the influential classics. This is neither neutral nor is it a "proved fact" (what ever that may be). It is an ongoing struggle on the one hand and current research on the other hand. Both do not belong into a Wikipedia article informing about sociology. Both may have their place and their relevance to the Franz Oppenheimer article, and of course Oppenheimer should be included in categories and lists of sociologists. But not here, next to Marx, Durkheim and Weber. :Maybe an excerpt from the German Wikipedia helps to show my point. In the Franz Oppenheimer article there (our's is a translation of an older version), it is written: ::Verbreitung der Lehre ::Oppenheimer bildet eine Br�cke zwischen verschiedensten Schulen, was ihm zu seiner Lebenszeit nirgends W�rdigung einbrachte und was bis heute dazu f�hrt, dass der Wert seiner Lehre noch nicht einmal im Ansatz erkannt wurde. Er entwickelt eine Denkweise, die jede herrschende Klasse oder denen die mit politischen Mitteln an die Herrschaft gelangen wollen, in Unruhe versetzen muss. Seine Werke wurden 1933 in Deutschland verboten und eingezogen. Die Art, wie er die Verh�ltnisse seiner (und unserer) Zeit grundlegend in Frage stellte und dann einer unspektakul�ren und konsequenten L�sung zuf�hrt, ist der eigentliche Wert seiner wissenschaftlichen (Beweis) Methode. ::Damit wird auch erkl�rt, dass er nahezu nicht mehr sichtbar ist, obwohl seine Arbeiten f�r die L�sung der sozialen Frage aktuell sind. F�r jene, die auf der Suche nach der gro�en Geschichte sind, wird er als neue Entdeckung in Erscheinung treten. :To paraphrase this in English: "Spread of Oppenheimers methods - Oppenheimer formed a briged between different schools. This leads to ignorance about his work at his lifetime as well as today. His way of thinking was seen - and has to be seen - as problematic by every ruling class, so consequentially his works were forbidden in 1933 Germany. This helps to explain why he is invisible until today, even if his work is very important for solving the social question of today. He will be a big discovery for those who look out for him." -- This says all, doesn't it? -- User:Tillwe | User_talk:tillwe 21:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::You are enforcing a doctrine that screws up the intention of wikipedia. YOU are actually destroying the absolute and non-negotiable NPOV. By the way, YOU try to enforce your point of view, your german mainstream - rtfm on WP:NPOV. :::If you don't believe in truth, why are you doing this? Wikipedia is not about ''"giving a neutral view of mainstream reality"''. Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. Germans never seem to change. The human race is more than the Germans. Sociology is more than what you learn in Germany. Come on, guy, globalize! Expand your horizon. We know Franz Oppenheimer alog with libertarian style writers like Thomas Jefferson, Albert J. Nock, J. Stuart Mill and others. He was mentor to Adolf Lowe. ... I searched them and found this german website for you: http://www.lsr-projekt.de/msinda.html . :::FYI: i digged up some german websites on Frankfurt School and Oppenheimer, may be you can read: ::::http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/presse/rzpotsda.htm ::::http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/institut/geschichte1.htm :::I don't need to fight for inclusion because Wikipedia includes all. NPOV! Its not my job to teach you the history of sociology. :::I've been aware of the excerpt from the German Wikipedia long time ago. Fine to the german wikipedia and no use for english version. It's true but partial. Your translation i don't understand to go for argument. To me this goes like the typical german way of interpreting reality. Do you learn to go this one-way at school? Outside germany (like U.S.) he is quite known. No one would bother to put him among the theorists of sociology. They're not so much into Marx but no one has erased that figure! By the way: you erased a name you're not familiar with just to go for your doctrine. Think of that! If everyone would erase the names he don't know about! The opposite way would be propper to get an NPOV style. May be i'll dig up some original papers sometime at library so the wikipedia community has something to build upon. May be you have to look up yourself. I wouldn't build upon the teacher at school. They are mindclosers most of the time! :::What makes science science? Science is leaving open options for revisions (Alfred North Whitehead). Enforcing your narrow mind you are on the opposite of science, destroying options and therefore revisions. May be the cause is that you don't care for the colored truth, as you've written at the beginning. ::::As I said, dear anonymous participant, please show us an [http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/fo32a.htm introductionary academic text] about sociology (Talk:Franz_Oppenheimer or from somewhere else) that [http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/ep64a.htm mentions Oppenheimer in the same league as Marx, Weber] and Durkheim, and I'll be happy to include him so prominently in the article. As far as I know, for example Giddens Sociology does not mention him. BTW: I'm happy with Oppenheimer in the list of sociologist, and I think it would be a good idea to mention him maybe in a separate "history of sociology" article -- but I really don't understand your "typical german deletion of names" point. Put it the other way round, we should mention all of Simmel, Mannheim, Schumpeter, T�nnies (to name only a few Germans) as well as all the Chicago school people as well as ... in the section about the history of sociology. Do you think we should do this? Or do you think there is something like a relevance criterium? :::::* yeah you got it, finaly! - all are relevant! :::::: Read about Wikipedia:NPOV -- this isn't identical to "all are relevant". And without relevance (that is: drawing distinctions), there wouldn't be any science. BTW: it is seen as not very nice behavior to edit links into talk texts written by others. But do you know what http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/fo32a.htm is about?. Have you read it? It's a long rant about the state of sociology in Germany in 1932 as seen by Franz Oppenheimer. I could publish a text about what I find important in sociology on my website, call this "Introduction into sociology by Till Westermayer", and it won't give me any more academic relevance or reputation. You can't decide yourself if the rest of the world thinks your ideas are that of a genius or to be ignored. So, you still haven't presented a actual introduction into sociology talking about Franz Oppenheimer, US or not. :::::: Oh yes, and http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/ep64a.htm is a talk from 1964 by the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe university of Frankfurt, published in their university journal. That is the same university which gave the professorship to Oppenheimer. Again no sign of relevance for the sociology of today! ::::::: User:Tillwe | User_talk:tillwe 22:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure if google is a good relevance indicator, but look at these numbers: ::::(all for "introduction to sociology" + name - wikipedia") ::::[http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Max+Weber%22+%22introduction+to+sociology%22+-wikipedia++&btnG=Suche&meta= Max Weber 1.600] ::::[http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Karl+Marx%22+%22introduction+to+sociology%22+-wikipedia++&btnG=Suche&meta= Karl Marx 1.100] ::::[http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Emile+DUrkheim%22+%22introduction+to+sociology%22+-wikipedia++&btnG=Suche&meta= Emile Durkheim 949] ::::[http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Robert+E.+Park%22+%22introduction+to+sociology%22+-wikipedia++&btnG=Suche&meta= Robert E. Park 120] ::::[http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Joseph+Schumpeter%22+%22introduction+to+sociology%22+-wikipedia++&btnG=Suche&meta= Joseph Schumpeter 18] ::::[http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22Franz+Oppenheimer%22+%22introduction+to+sociology%22+-wikipedia++&btnG=Suche&meta= Franz Oppenheimer 1] ::::-- User:Tillwe | User_talk:tillwe 11:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::* think about: wenn all of the Franz Oppenheimer writings in germany got banned and withdrawn from public in 1933, how could you know about him? google knows only what people write about and put on the www. at those times the www wasn't invented! i thought you knew that. Science is not about pop charts. ::::P.S.: What is this about typical Germans? And the libertarian POV mentioned above? :::::* those who ask don't know. those who know don't ask. :::::: the oracle is ridiciulous ::::P.P.S. (sorry): Even http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/institut/geschichte1.htm says that Oppenheimer was seen as an outsider to sociology even at his time, and mentiones his influence not on sociology, but on the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany via Ludwig Erhard and others. :::::* he was the first one to the Chair for Sociology in Germany ever. So no outsider! Don't mess up. The center is not the outside. :::::: Read your own reading suggestions. It says that even the contemporary (proto)-sociologists considered him an outsider, even in the center. == BTW: Social theory == What should we do with this long "history of social theory" narrative at the end of the article? -- User:Tillwe | User_talk:tillwe 15:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) :My whole being says, "Bag it!" But then I realized that it's the only major contribution to this page in months. Maybe those who particiated in the Franz O. shouting match above want to transfer some of that energy to the actual article, which is pretty horrid right now.--User:Jcdavis 09:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) == History of sociology == I suggest that all the history of sociology that is present here is transferred to the new article "History of sociology" and only a short resum� is left here. Then the link to the article "history of sociology" can be put also on the list in the article "history of science". --User:Eleassar777 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) : When this section is long enough, and the article is above 32kb, we will surely do so. --User:Piotrus ^{User_talk:Piotrus} 22:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Social research methods == I added a small section about social research methods. I briefly mentioned the main methods used in sociology, and discussed how what theoretical position you take can change and alter your conclusions and preferred method use. I am a sociology major at Georgia State, so any suggestions or comments would be awesome. Please be kind, this is my first real addition. Thanks. : User:NoahK 04:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC) == Picture == I like the new picture -- we see at least one institution, groups, different people in interaction -- a food visualisation of sociology. -- User:Tillwe | User_talk:tillwe 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) : A point. Although I would like to see a more people. And more pictures. But I guess it's a start :> --User:Piotrus ^{User_talk:Piotrus} 22:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sociology

Sociology is the study of social rules and processes that bind and separate people not only as individuals, but as members of associations, Group (sociology), and institutions. A typical textbook definition of sociology calls it the study of the social lives of humans, groups and society. Sociology is interested in our behavior as social beings; thus the sociological field of interest ranges from the analysis of short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of globalisation. Social sciences th:Category:สังคมวิทยา

Sociology

i would like to start some ideas here on some issues in todays world.

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

S

SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |

Words begining with Sociology:

Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology/Cultural_anthropology
SociologyTasks
Sociology_basic_topics
Sociology_books
Sociology_of_Clothing
Sociology_of_clothing
Sociology_of_clothing
Sociology_of_Community
Sociology_of_Community_(book)
Sociology_of_conflict
Sociology_of_deviance
Sociology_of_deviance
Sociology_of_Disaster
Sociology_of_disaster
Sociology_of_fatherhood
Sociology_of_government
Sociology_of_health_and_illness
Sociology_of_industrial_relations
Sociology_of_knowledge
Sociology_of_knowledge
Sociology_of_knowlege
Sociology_of_language
Sociology_of_Markets
Sociology_of_markets
Sociology_of_politics
Sociology_of_Religion
Sociology_of_Religion
Sociology_of_religion
Sociology_of_religion
Sociology_of_Religion_(book)
Sociology_of_Religion_(book)
Sociology_of_Religion_(book_by_Maximilian_Weber)
Sociology_of_Religion_(book_by_Maximilian_Weber)
Sociology_of_Rulership_and_Religion
Sociology_of_Rulership_and_Religion_(book)
Sociology_of_science
Sociology_of_science_and_technology
Sociology_of_Scientific_Knowledge
Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge
Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge
Sociology_of_the_World_Religions:_Introduction
Sociology_of_the_World_Religions:_Introduction_(book)
Sociology_of_Wikipedia_via_Rorty_and_Berger
Sociology_of_Wikipedia_via_Rorty_and_Berger
Sociology_of_Wikipedia_via_Rorty_and_Berger
Sociology_of_Work
Sociology_professors
Sociology_stubs
Sociology_topics