Lately, I came across a series of job offers that included teaching of courses like "Theory of Sociology" - both pointing to the "classics" and to contemporary theories, sometimes mixed, sometimes as separate courses. As a sociologist, I always tell people that I know about theory of sociology - but I realized that I never participated in a seminar, lecture or otherwise course with that title (rather in courses that had titles like "Systems Theory", "Adorno", "Culture and Development" and so on). So, I was thinking: what would I include in a course of theory of sociology as basic readings? What texts should be read by every sociologists? And - where is the distinction between classical theory and contemporary stuff (yeah, with Weber thats clear. But with Luhmann, Bourdieu, Wallerstein?)?
What are your ideas and experiences with theory of sociology as a topic of teaching?
good question though, and a difficult one to answer as well. I personally would draw the line between classical theorists and contemporary ones not too hard. Someone cited a lot in their field might be a so-called modern classic, because most people have already heard of this theory or might even have read the works. So I'd say, all of those you name are classical theory by now for sure: Weber, Luhmann, Bourdieu, Wallerstein. And many more.
Regarding the must-have-read texts, I would like to take into consideration the targeted audience and the orientation of the institute that is. e. g. if you are in a tradition of interpretative paradigm and the researchers at the institute undertake studies more or less along this paradigm, it might be helpful to focus on the traditions in this particular paradigm and show how contemporary theory is constructed and where it does come from. Of course, the main lines of sociology I would not neglect either. But like that, it might be easier for students to see what they learn for, what applications might arise from the theory they learn and nonetheless it enables the possibility of a fruitful exchange with the researchers, as they learn to know what they talk about.
So I would suggest to start with Weber, Durkheim and Marx as base and then select the most influencing theorists from each paradigm to show what it is about before focusing on those which are most widely used at the place you work and try to explain why.
In my view the term "classics" still only refers to the first generation sociologists who more or less understood themselves as sociologists (or held the then newly built professorships in sociology): Weber, Simmel, Durkheim, Tönnies and maybe Mead. Second generation sociologists built their theories upon the earlier classical works (Parsons, Schütz, Garfinkel, Goffman, Homans...). Bourdieu and Luhmann could somehow still be regarded as contemporary theories for they are still pretty much "in use". Otherwise stated: to distinguish between classical and contemporary theories seems not sufficient to me. Instead I would try to highlight the shifts in sociological reasoning in the course of time and how these changes are internally connected.
For me, you should look at the credit hours allocated for the course and the level of the students, who are going to study.
The above mentioned theorists are studied everywhere. There are "classical" , "Modern"and " post -modern" theories. The theories were applied in different empirical researches as well. So I would like to request you to add the basic theory of a particular theorist and with at least one empirical study of that piece.
Suggestions from Matthias and Yves is praiseworthy!
Best Regards
I appreciate Yves's point of view regarding the suggestion to start with Marx, Weber and Durkheim as it has been a successful and widely accepted way of academic teaching in the sociological fraternity. I would like to add to it while advocating for theories such as development of underdevelopment and post modernism with special reference to the third world development discourse.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology