Outline, glossary, links, etc. The most useful and most current outline is from the outline form of the lectures. The cover page of the PP lectures, including the links, gives the link to each day’s lecture. –You may also wish to print the concepts glossary and the main sociologists for the exams. –But learn the material as we go. You will not be able to use those in the short answer questions, and you will not get much credit for that information in essays –When a link appears many times, it may only be listed once. However, the Villanova security system has frustrated many students, and so on 9/24, I will give anyone who wishes outlines of the first 10

Murray and Social Darwinism** ** The position defended by Charles Murray is similar to the position that dominated sociology from 1840 to 1930 It was originated by Herbert Spencer**, who was “Mr. Sociology” in that time, ** The position called Social Darwinism. Spencer defended the idea that progress is driven by competition and “the survival of the fittest.”

Social Darwinism in the age of the robber barons Spencerian sociology was very popular with figures such as Carnagie because he believed that policies such as welfare and minimum wage promote the survival of the less fit survival of the less fitsurvival of the less fit and he thought poverty stemmed from the nature of the poor. nature of the poor nature of the poor The sociology of the Chicago school was directed against Spencer’s views, Which were discredited by the Great Depression and the rise of the Nazi party.

Social Darwinism today Murray does not defend the abolition of public health, discrimination by racial groups or the abolition of minimum wage in order to promote the survival of the fittest. But he does defend them. But he does believe, for example: 1. Genetic differences in ability determine one’s chances of success. 2. Public policies are ineffective. 3. Discrimination has received a bad name; to maintain a community’s norms requires discriminating against those whose life style conflicts with it. 4. Some portion of the difference in life chances of minority groups is due to a genetic lack of ability.

The central flaw of Social Darwinism: Human beings are social animals. It is as members of groups, communities, families and other social groups that we do what we do and are what we are. The Chicago sociologists, Durkheim and Marx all stressed this point. The simple examples of crosstabulations from the General Social Survey, e.g. networks (who you know) and happiness (how you feel) illustrate the pervasive mutually reinforcing effects of conditions such as poverty.

Murray’s Analysis Murray’s books have different starting points, but they come to the same conclusions: more coercion and less social policy to reduce disadvantage. Many sociologists argue that coercion makes matters worse e.g. racial profiling* racial profiling*racial profiling* Murray argues that social policy to reduce disadvantage (e.g. AFDC, job training or foodstamps) make matters worse.

Trendline Test He argues that even in cases where everyone says that gov’t policy has helped Gov’t policy is, at best ineffective. He argues that if you look at the data carefully, it was the market (e.g. better cars and roads) that drove down fatalities, and slowed down the decrease. Critically examine the argument.

Some specific Problems with Murray’s analysis 1: What range of speed is involved: the lowered speed limit was not designed to reduce fatalities, and no one thought it would do so 2: What highways: the lower speed limits were only on the interstates. Most fatalities are local. Murray’s data is not confined to interstates. 3. Better cars, better highways, and inspections (which Murray thinks lowered fatalities) are the result of the kinds of policies he opposes.

A more general issue Murray confines his analysis to 2 variables with no feedbacks –assuming that limits affect fatalities, but fatalities cannot affect limits. –This is analogous to a classic fallacy –That fire engines do not decrease fire damage. –Looking at functional feedbacks avoids the fallacy.

A possible “libertarian” theory of government inefficiency It is true that if a progressive and beneficial process is operating, you do not want to “kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.” Libertarians (Murray, Spencer, 19 th c. liberals) believe that markets are that goose gov’t policy interferes with them, stunts individual initiative, and is unfair. Therefore they argue that go’t should concern itself only with keeping order not HEW. Etc.

The fire engine fallacy Suppose one were to decide on whether to have a public fire company by seeing whether there was greater or lesser damage when there were more fire engines (or periods with more engines). But when there are more fire engines, there is more damage. Fire engines do not cause damage, but they respond to functional needs such as larger fires. If policies are effective, but not totally effective, they will be positively associated with problems.

The return to little house on the prairie Many of the proposals of Libertarians, like Murray, are an attempt to go back to the kind of social structure of the 19 th c. There was little government and lots of mutual aid (e.g. bucket brigades for fires.) But the San Francisco Earthquake and fire storm shows the dysfunctionality of relying on private fire companies or bucket brigades in a modern city.