Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing Slide 1 I wanted to go over some of the basic ideas behind sociology, even though Giddens covers some of this as well. First, sociology is a scientific discipline in the sense that we use the principles of the scientific method. One example of the scientific method is deductive research in which the sociologist begins by asking a research question, such as “What factors are related to why people get divorced?” After asking her research question, the sociologist then reads sociological research on the topic of divorce, such as journal articles and scholarly books, to see what others have found to be related to divorce. She then states several hypotheses, collects data, and then analyzes the data to see if her hypotheses were supported. She then uses a sociological theory to explain why these factors are related to divorce. This process is outlined in more detail in the second chapter. It is common for people in the general public, and college students as well, to have some misconceptions regarding sociology. Since sociology addresses many social issues that people often have some knowledge about and/or experience with, some believe that sociology simply involves discussing one’s opinions or beliefs about a topic. While opinions and beliefs are relevant to study, they don’t constitute the essence of what sociological thinking is about. Sociology doesn’t involve mere blathering about social issues in which the person who argues the loudest is the most correct. Network and cable news programs often provide entertaining discussions of social, political, and economic issues, occasionally with sarcasm or biting remarks. More often than not, these discussions are driven by political ideology (and entertainment purposes) rather than objective social science.

Here is a good example of the challenge of sociology. Imagine an inner-city neighborhood anywhere in the U.S. You can probably imagine that this area has an above average high school drop-out rate, a higher crime rate, a higher unemployment rate, etc. Compare this neighborhood to an affluent suburban neighborhood anywhere in the U.S. You can imagine that this area has a below-average high school drop-out rate, a lower crime rate, a lower unemployment rate, etc. Notice that when I am talking about neighborhoods, I am using the term “rate.” This is a macro-level unit of analysis (in other words, not based on one person). We might conclude that people in the suburban neighborhood simply tried harder to finish high school, tried harder to not commit any crime, and tried harder to get a job. This approach is further bolstered by the realization that many people in the inner-city neighborhood did finish high school, never committed a crime, and found jobs. It seems reasonable then to conclude that effort is the fundamental difference explaining these neighborhood differences. The problem is that there are actually TWO levels of analysis we must consider as sociologists – that micro-level differences among PEOPLE exist, but that macro-level differences between GROUPS (or neighborhoods) exist as well. The goal (and challenge) of sociology is to account for differences at BOTH levels. Sociologists do not rely on “common sense,” religious enlightenment, or political ideology in deriving their conclusions about the social world. That is not to say that common sense, religious beliefs, or political ideology do not motivate sociologists to ask certain questions about the social world or influence their conclusions. A very religious sociologist might be interested in differences in family dynamics among religious and non-religious families, or a conservative sociologist might be interested in the possible adverse effects of maternal full-time employment. However, regardless of their religiosity or political ideology, sociologists are expected to conduct impartial (objective) research. According to the scientific method, empirical knowledge trumps all other “ways of knowing.” Perhaps this is why sociologists can attract the anger of interest groups, particularly if our scientific findings contradict their social, economic, or political interests. This will become more evident as you read through the chapters. Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing Slide 2

Sociological theory serves to provide a general explanation for the specific relationships we discover in our research. There is a tendency among the general public to treat theory as something remote from reality (i.e., “that’s great in theory, but…”). However, there is nothing unreal about it. In other words, theory relates to our empirical knowledge. Keep in mind that sociology consists of micro and macro level theories, so if a sociologist is studying individuals, he would use a micro level theory (such as symbolic interactionism or social exchange theory). If he were studying macro level phenomena (i.e., social institutions, states, or nations) he would use a macro level theory to explain his findings (such as neo-Marxism or functionalism). Theories that stand the test of time survive and are often modified (a good example is Marxism developing into neo-Marxism to fit new findings. It would be poor science for a sociologist to continue to use a theory that simply doesn’t have empirical support. A good example of a theory in its sunset years is functionalism. It has more or less been replaced by better theories. It is important that you learn the theories discussed in the text because we will revisit these throughout the semester. One of my primary goals as a professor of sociology is to help you all to understand and appreciate sociology as a social science. Giddens makes reference to a great text by C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination, in which Mills describes how students can come to understand the sociological perspective. Mills wants us to see the connections between our own lives and the larger social world. One stumbling block to this realization involves the substantial degree of individualism in the United States. Individualism in and of itself isn’t a problem, but as most Americans know, we are socialized (raised, taught) from a very early age that we can accomplish anything we want simply by trying hard enough. In other words, we are taught that we can overcome any obstacle if we work hard and never give up. Of course, there is some truth to this, and it’s a pretty good approach to life. However, many Americans are less opt to see how the larger society impacts people – the neighborhood in which one grew up, the quality of the schools one attended, even technological advancements that affect the occupational structure (the types of jobs that exist in the economy). Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing Slide 3

Introduction to Sociology and Sociological Theorizing Slide 4 Here is the issue that distinguishes sociology from other approaches – sociology acknowledges that macro- level factors (neighborhoods, social institutions, and the economy, etc.) affect humans at the GROUP (or aggregate) level. In other words, many of us recognize that certain categories of people often experience different outcomes in the world – better educations, better jobs, better marriages, etc. These different outcomes do not exist solely because of INDIVIDUAL differences, but also because of different macro-level factors. It is very common for introductory sociology students to rely on individual-level explanations for understanding differences among people. However, this is how you should think about human differences (just as Giddens points out in one of his PP slides) – that there is an interplay between the larger society and our individual-level life experiences (just as Mills argues). By Robert S. Bausch (Copyright 2006)