Understanding Social Theory: Explanation of Diverse Social Phenomena and Change, Exams of Nursing

Download Understanding Social Theory: Explanation of Diverse Social Phenomena and Change and more Exams Nursing in PDF only on Docsity! SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE 2024 What is sociological theory? - A simple answer: It is an attempt to provide explanation for diverse types of social phenomena and social change at a range of scales, large and small o Theory is explanation o Changes in the social world - Another way to answer the question is to distinguish… 1) The positive approach (looking at what “is”, describing)  Thomas Kuhn o Does not define by abstract rules o Science is what scientists do 2) The normative approach (looking at what “ought” to be the case) – Karl Popper o What counts as a good theory? o Criteria to count as good science o Must be falsifiable, potentially wrong  All swans are white, found a black swan – this evidence proves its false - All this put differently; we can look at… - We can understand by the theorist and what they meant, or assert generalizable claims and understand the theory 1) The theorists, or 2) The theory o Here you can understand theory in a  Broad sense, ie, “framework,” (Marxism; rational choice theory; evolutionary biological) or in a - How the state works, use these to explain Marxism/ Rational Choice  Narrow sense, ie, “mechanisms” (X factor might have caused Y outcome. A factor might have caused B outcome) - Why domestic violence decreased, maybe since divorce increased Why do we need theory? 1) The “Theory-leadenness” of facts - All observations are bound to implicit theory o Poor people  try to explain o Cannot observe, and understand it o Can lead to false conclusions, without theory 2) Even statistics are meaningless without theory… - Exhibit A: High statistical correlations, that may be meaningless - Exhibit B: You still need theory to understand and interpret - Look for additional facts  sun going down or we roll over the sun - Capitalism and Protestantism (opposite) o Particular world view (saving and Investment) Why social Theory? - The merit of actions that we choose to engage with - We are following social rules - How these rules change Pivotal idea on social theory: Social rules govern actions Six Sociological ideas about social rules: 1) Rules are enforced - Not a rule if it is not enforced somehow 2) Rules come in many diverse forms - Different forms – can be laws or norms, incorporated to our habitus 3) Rules are not neutral – winners and losers - Rules benefit some people, but not others o Vagrancy laws, Jim Crow o Difficult to leave your slave owners 4) Rules are backed by power - People will defend these rules if they benefit them - Jim Crow’s Vagrancy laws benefited some 5) Rules are often inconsistent - Rules can contradict - Pressure for women to enter workforce, yet also have kids (contradictory) 6) Rules change over time - Deliberately or in a fundamental way, they change - Societies as distinct objects of analysis, that differ across time & place and have their own logic.. and may not be reducible to individuals within them: o Louis de Bonald: “The schools of modern philosophy… have produced the philosophy of modern man, the philosophy of I … I want to produce the philosophy of social man, the philosophy of we” - Social theory distinguishes societies along various lines: eg: Secular/ religious; capitalist/ feudal/ socialist; modern/traditional; organic solidarity/ mechanical solidarity, and so on The origins of social theory - Social theory (classical & then contemporary) emerges as a response to massive, society changing events o Origins are a response to social change - Especially, the industrial & French revolutions o They are the largest revolutions o As soon as it changes, you realize there are different societies Explosions in Population and Wealth - Graph* Explosions in cities - A recipe for capitalism in 5 easy steps: 1. People were kicked off the land (the ‘enclosures’) 2. They flooded the cities 3. That land was used for capitalist farming 4. The new methods used exponentially raised productivity and, 5. Much more food was produced which, - From the Side of Agency - Important to look at the actions of agents, as lots of things need to be explained by what people do o Do their actions explain the world? - Intentional – actions are consciously choose given intentions, not programmed; norm or goal-driven o Their actions are chosen o May be delivered by different goals - RATIONAL– given a chosen end, what is an appropriate means to achieve it (rational not = to selfish)  We don’t care about your end o “Optimizing” – people select best possible choice to maximize expected utility (economics)  Best Possible way o “Satisficing” – People select most acceptable option given limited information and time  Most acceptable, good enough o “Strategic” – people make choices knowing that others do too; those choices interact (game theory)  Other people are making choices, outcome depends on both - IRRATIONAL – inappropriate means to achieve given ends o “Wishful thinking” – “The wish is the father of the thought”  Leading you to thinking it will be true o Elster’s Example of Wishful thinking:  Gambling o “Ignoring the base rate”  Truck Driver vs. Violinist – ignoring the base rate that there is more truck drivers o “Adoptive preferences” – AKA “sour grapes” (or “you only said you don’t like that car because you can’t afford it”), also called “cognitive dissonance”  You say you don’t want your ex because they don’t want you (sour Grapes) o “Magical Thinking” – Belief that you can have a casual influence on outcomes outside your control (Weber’s “predestination”) o “Self-serving/ blaming Bias”  May blame yourself for not getting a job - NON- INTENTIONAL – actions are not chosen, they are “programmed”, “inculcated”, “socialized”, consistent with one’s “Habitus” (Bourdieu) o Not thinking when you are playing the guitar or playing basketball, not fully thinking about it o Non-intentional form of action Week 2: Theories of Capitalism Life Before Capitalism - “A mere handful of folk—unending emptiness stretching so far west, north, and east that it covers everything— fallow land, fens, and wandering rivers, heaths, woods and pastureland, every conceivable type of erstwhile forest leaving behind it brush fires and the wood burners' furtive sowing—clearings here and there, wrested from the forest but still only half-tamed; shallow pitiful furrows that wooden implements drawn by scrawny oxen have scratched in the unyielding soil … huts of stone, mud or branches, clustered in hamlets surrounded by thorn hedges and a belt of gardens; sparsely scattered towns, streets in ruins, fortifications haphazardly repaired, stone structures dating back to the Roman Empire that have been turned into churches or strongholds. - Such is the Western world in the year 1000. Compared with Byzantium, compared with Cordoba, it seems rustic, very poor and defenseless. A wild world ringed round by hunger, its meager population is in fact too large. The people struggle almost barehanded, slaves to intractable nature and to a soil that is unproductive because it is poorly worked. No peasant who sows one grain of wheat expects to harvest much more than three—if it is not too bad a year that means bread to eat until Easter time.” o Georges Duby, The Age of the Cathedrals, cited in Bowles et al. o Year 1000 o Short life spans, no experience with people/ places far away o Life in Europe o Food reliance was based on limited production o Fens = marshland o Sons made there was of living just like their fathers – no change Defining Capitalism - Three Defining conditions 1. A class structure means of production are privately owned and controlled; thus investment decisions are made by private actors o One class owns them the other does not 2. A labor market: non-owners (workers) must work for the owners (capitalists) of those means of production, otherwise more or less, they starve; this is called the “double freedom”; non-owners are free to sell their labor to whichever capitalist they choose and if they fail to do so they are free to starve o The class that does not own, works for the owners/ capitalists o If not, you starve o Double freedom: Free to sell their labor to any capitalists or they starve, you have to choose 3. A goods market: you get the things you need to live on the market o Commodity market o You do not make all your food/ clothes on your own What it is not: - These violate one or more of the criteria - Feudalism o Key resource: land; peasants tied to the land, cannot move, have rights to some means of production; limited goods market, you produce your own food o Japanese vs. European feudalism o Violating the class structure o Violating the labor market, they are stuck/ tied to the land o Producing your own good, this violated a goods market - Slavery o Key resource: people; owned as private property o Violating a labor market  cannot choose - Simple Market Economy o People work for themselves or via contracts, own their own MOP, and produce for themselves, and sometimes for the market, sometimes called “cottage industry” or “the putting-out system” o You don’t have the same class structure - State bureaucratic socialism o State owns all means of production; centrally organized, from a top-down bureaucracy o You don’t have class structure o We will invest in this more than that - Democratic socialism o Means of production owned/ controlled through democratic mechanisms o Means of production that are more or less owned o Yet they may be owned (controlled by democratic mechanisms) o Norway/ Sweden o Owned in the public, rather than the private o 60% of the gov’t is owned o Market socialism Arguments for Capitalism - Moral Argument - Libertarianism - Individual freedom is the paramount social value, i.e, “negative freedom” (freedom from coercion). Individuals have negative freedom when no one directly commands them to do things against their will. On this view, unfettered markets are morally good because in a market buyers & sellers meet and voluntarily make exchanges without coercion; it’s rooted in negative freedom o Individual freedom is the most important (sometimes negative freedom - nobody is bossing you around) o Voluntarily make exchanges – rooted in negative freedom - People should (remember, should = moral, “normative”) be free to use their property, their means of production, in any way they like. Including hiring workers so long as all agreements are voluntarily entered into o What is wrong with capitalist adults consenting o The point is when arguing for standards about working conditions you are violating the boss o We are willing to violate these restrictions for the working conditions - Restrictions of voluntary contracts – including restrictions governing things like working conditions, pay, rights to hire & fire etc – are all violations of this conception of freedom. Conclusion: A minimally regulated capitalism is the best form of economic organization to satisfy these moral principles - Pragmatic Argument - Coordination - (i) Problem of complex coordination can be solved in two ways: economic command & decentralized markets. The sheer information complexity in coordinating millions of inputs for millions of outputs (toothbrushes, iphones, candy, staplers, etc) makes decentralized markets better suited to pragmatically organize the production of goods in a large economy. o This coordination is all rooted in the “price mechanism”: you get the right amount of toothbrushes because prices send signals  if more people want to buy them, their prices will go up, and that will lead more producers to make them, pulling their prices down so people can buy them at better prices o People need to eat and consume in one way or another o Economic command  Gov’t commands what we are going to do o We may decide we care about minimum wage; this may have impact on economy, capitalist may flee the economy o May release to a reversal o Pro-child  vote out o They always have to worry if this small group of people are happy - (iii) Economic inequality in capitalism can  political inequality, as people plough economic gains into the political system, lobbying, influencing democracy etc o Should not have political inequality o Some people have a lot of resources that can affect political inequality; i.e funding a specific campaign that will do thinks you like - (iv) Allows workplace authoritarianism (restricting “negative freedom”). o You are bossed around 9-5 o If it is good for the economy, why is it bad for the workplace - Pragmatic Argument 1. Information failures - “Buyer beware” sellers hide information (their incentive is to hide negative info about their cigarettes, about dangers in their cars, food, etc), thus, regulations blocking “false advertising” require firms to provide info that they would not in a purely free market. Some consumer goods we have information about and can evaluate, but others we just don’t, it’s hard to have those on the market o Buyer Beware  Cigerattes/ cars, ford/ pinto,  Cheaper to absolve legal disputes, rather than to fix the cars  Some we have information – we can understand the quality ourselves (take-out food)  Vice versa; ex. Hip Surgery – you don’t know much about it, hard to evaluate, gap of information 2. Concentrators of economic power - Walmart, Microsoft: they don’t just sell on the market, they shape the market when they’re the only game in town o They don’t just sell, compete, they shape it o Firms don’t just have power o Only game in town, forcing people to do business o General motors were able to buy up o You no longer get positive outcomes of competition 3. Short time horizons - The structure of capitalism shortens time horizons. Firms compete for investment; investors look for high returns immediately, thus projects that are beneficial but take a long time are overlooked & investment gives little weight to its impact on the future o Compete for investments o Polluting companies  short term gains 4. Negative externalities - In capitalism, producers are supposed to pay for their costs, all of which are reflected in the selling price; only then are market exchanges efficient. But firms have an incentive to not cover their own costs, to “externalize” them, forcing others to pay. Pollution is a classic example: Pollution may be a part of the total cost of production, but if a firm is not forced to clean the mess they make in the production process, if instead they dump toxins into a nearby river, then the pollution cost isn’t factored into the final price. Goods are artificially cheap, because they don’t reflect the real social price. Thus, market exchange is not efficient because the price does not reflect true costs. Costs were externalized. In capitalism, there’s a systematic incentive to force others to cover your costs. o A different example, negative externalities are just negative side effects on others: A firm moving abroad may hurt local home values; if, i.e., they were owned by the community they might “internalize” the externality, consider the true cost, and not move. o Side effects on others o Enjoying the cigarette is the main affect, side effect is cancer/ bad smell o Pushing indirect costs on someone else o Capitalism  producers are supposed to pay for their costs, if it is sold for the amount of the costs o They may externalize the costs  pollution if a firm is not required for the produced toxins, the pollution cost is not reflected in the cost o Goods will be cheap o Result  not efficient, since these costs are not reflected  Example  a firm moving abroad 5. Public goods - Something that provides benefits even when you don’t contribute to it, something it’s hard to exclude people from consuming. E.g., a lighthouse benefits boats that didn’t pitch in for it, and the people who paid for it can’t easily stop other boats from benefiting. SO: If you can consume bens, you wouldn’t want to pay for it, you’d free ride and wait for others to do it. Thus, markets under-produce these kinds of public goods. Other examples: National defence, education, public health, clean air, public broadcasting, etc. “Tragedy of the commons” is why they’re often publicly provided. Bc these have public benefits beyond the direct consumer, the market won’t provide an optimal amount, and public provision may be warranted o Hard to exclude people from using – ex: light house o People who pay for it, cannot stop others from using it o If you can get benefits from National Defense o Public goods tend to get underproduced o Examples: Education, health o To save the under provision to produce Week 3: Theories of Inequality - How to think about inequality, the different assumptions Two theoretical approaches to Inequality 1. Gradational Approach  dominant approach - Inequality is a ladder, where people have more or less of something (some are rich, some are poor) - Society is a ladder, of attributes, can be income/ health - You can rank everyone, line them all up o Upper class, middle, low 2. Relational approaches - Inequality is a structure of social relations that binds the advantages of some people to disadvantages of other people (capitalists & workers; lords & serfs; slaves & slave owners) - Society is a structure - Binds people together, related within a structure - The outcome is from some sort of social process - Missing something important  they have to be understood as together - Ex - no concept if mother without child - Define positions, not only by attributes Illustration 1: Gradational Class theory - The grasshopper and the ant as paradigm case - Resulting inequality is a product of different individuals attributes: resources, skills, talents, networks o Lazy grasshopper, industrial ant o The ant saved up supplies for the winter, the ant has more o If you want to explain, you do not have to explain their relationship o We can describe, one worked hard, one did not o Individual attributes of the individual Illustration 2: Relational Class theory - Differing classrooms as paradigm case - Resulting inequality is not just a product of your attributes, but of the macro-structure; where people fall depends on available position to fall into, implying that your outcomes are related to others’ outcomes o Lecture 1 o Same people in the same world; the classroom distribution is different o Grade inequality  The outcome is not dependent on attributes o The outcomes you get depend on the structure you are working in Illustration 3: Relational class theory - Dogs is a pen as another paradigm case - Resulting inequality is a product of macro-structure; what the dogs get depend not just on their attributes, but on the availability of the bones o Philosopher – dogs in a pen o Imagine dogs with different sizes, ability snatching up bones o When bones are tossed in, the bone distribution is based on the preferences of the dog o Strong dogs will get the large bones o Describe by individual attributes o Insufficient  cannot be explained by attributes o What is missing, a bag of bones then more bones then dogs will create equality Rethinking Exploitation - RETHINKING EXPLOITATION: You get “exploitation” when you have all three, when you have the first two, you have “oppression” 1. Inverse interdependent welfare principle: the material welfare of group A causally depends upon the deprivations of group B (or the welfare of one depends upon the illfare of the other) o Depends on group B’s failure o Gets at the shmoo story 2. Resource exclusion principle: underlying this causal relation is the exclusion of group B from access to some important economic resource (ie, land). Usually exclusion is backed by force through property rights. o Idea this is underlying is the exclusion of group B o Exclusion of land and resources o If you have the first two, this is oppression 3. Effort appropriation principle: the mechanism by which exclusion from resources generates antagonistic interests involves the appropriation of labor effort performed by group B by group A, ie, now they’re working for you. o Welfare depends on you working for me o Now you have exploitation If you have all three - A thought experiment proof of the existence of exploitation: If the dominated group simply stopped existing, died, or stopped working, and the dominant group is worse off, you’ve got exploitation. If the dominant group is better off, it was oppression. o Oppression vs. exploitation “Exploitation” or “Oppression”? - Historical examples: o Peasants kicked off the “commons” & hired back  Exploitation  peasants were needed, some common rights, then were hired back, if they disappeared, they were worse off o Slavery in the Americas?  Exploitation since they wanted their labor o Genocide of Native Americans?  Oppression  just wanted to exclude them, wanted their land o The Holocaust?  Oppression o Ordinary work in capitalism?  Exploitation o Poverty in rich countries? o Women in traditional div. of labour  Exploitation o LGBTQ?  Oppression - Fundamental sociological aspect of exploitation: exploitation is a form of oppression that gives real power to the exploited -- they have levers of resistance & struggle absent from brute oppression. This makes exploitative relations complex, explosive, dynamic… as exploiters need the exploited. Two theoretical perspectives on taxes - One response to poverty/inequality is to redistribute income through taxes. How to understand it given our individual & structural views? o Taxation is a way to solve inequality 1. Individual theory – “taxation is theft, don’t take what’s mine” - People are paid in accord with their productivity, taxation undermines individual productivity-based remuneration; it’s legalized theft. o Basic idea – taxation is theft 2. Structural theory – “it was never truly yours, you’re rich mainly because you happen to live in a rich society, and taxation is just a decision about the division of public and private resources” o You are lucky to live in a rich society o How mucg we can allocate to public resources - Your high income is only possible bc you’re born in a society where you can freely use highly developed infrastructure, technology, ideas, language, culture, etc. Without that you wouldn’t have a high income; if you were born on a desert island, you’d have a low standard of living, no matter how hard you worked. It’s pure luck you were born in a society enabling your high productivity—one with roads to move along, technologies to make use of, things that you did not contribute to but obtain for free this makes your high income somewhat accidental. Your income is therefore largely not attributable to you, and taxation is just a pragmatic division of total output *Look at other 4 slides Week 4: Theories of the State Overview of competing theories of the state: 1. Pluralist theory – The state does what it does because of competing interest groups (Dahl) 2. Network theory – The state is biased towards the individuals who run it, and their personal networks (Lenin) 3. Institutional theory – The state is biased by the rules determining how power is acquired, ie, campaigning demands resources, only some groups have access to resources (Milliband, Lenin, Skocpol) 4. Structural theory – The state is systematically biased towards policies that benefit business, bc all state revenue depends on business confidence (Poulantzas, Rogers & Cohen, Przeworski) The State – some definitions: - The state is: the most superordinate, territorially centralized, institution of domination in a society. o Contrast with Weberian defn: an apparatus which “monopolizes the legitimate use of force” over a territory.  Use of violence  May not monopolize violence o Contrast with Marxian defn: “A special machine for the suppression of one class by another, and of the majority by the minority … consists of special bodies of armed men, having prisons, etc, at their command.” (Lenin)  Idea = Domination  You do not have to build in class What do we mean by domination? Three ways to think about it (a la lukes): 1. A dominates B when A can get B to do something even over the objections of B (“Instrumental power”) o You’re going to school 2. A dominates B when A defines the alternatives open to B, within which B chooses (ie, “Setting the agenda,” defining what’s on the table). o A meeting’s chairman decides what’s discussed; parties decide whether single payer is an option in an election o What we will talk about or not o Forcing people to choose  Ex: going to the bar – two options/ parking ticket – pay or fight 3. A dominates B when A realize their interests at the expense of B’s interests, even if B freely cooperating (ie, “Preference shaping”). o Advertising, propaganda, framing outcomes in an appealing way, lowering your expectations bc you see no alternative… The big question: how is state policy determined? - The traditional answer from political science, Pluralism: o The push and pull of different actors and interest groups competing in an “environment of bargaining, voting, coalition building, and consensus formation” o “A key characteristic of a democracy is the continuing responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals” – Robert Dahl, 1971  The state is neutral, anyone can take power  They will battle it out, reflection in state policy  Anyone can win, no systematic bias Pluralism - The state itself is neutral, law simply represents a battle of interest groups, how things unfold no one can say in advance. Society is a collection of interest groups and the state is a reflection of that. - No systematic biases built into state decisions. State is fundamentally neutral at its core, there might be momentary advantages but no systematic ones. The traditional Marxist rejoinder: - Then why do states consistently protect private property, i.e., private ownership of the means of production? Moreso: Why do states defend the interests of employers? More broadly, why do they ensure the conditions for profitability? o Why do capitalist states protect private property? o Why do states defend the interest of employers Eg: Gilens & Page, “Affluence and Influence.” 2014 - They look at what legislation gets passed - Get their policies, low/ middle do not have an impact Filter Mechanisms: Another way to understand the systematic theory - This view suggests that the very nature of the state filters certain outcomes (Lukes’ 2nd form of power) - Clash with Democracy: In principle, democracy says that people ought to get what they want, yet, in this view, much is “off the table”, filtered out, democracy is constrained - “Negative selectivity” (Offe): The structure of the state makes certain outcomes impossible, others improbable: it systematically imposes biases into policy formation. o But for empirical research, how can we explain “non-events”? Are things structurally excluded or contingently excluded? o Policies that we don’t see o Difficult to research, hard to research a non-event o No regulation around air pollution – employers who pollute are in these cities Counterpoint to the structural theory 1: - States don’t simply worry about the conditions for “accumulation” keeping employers happy, they also worry about “legitimation” in the eyes of citizens o Frames a debate between accumulation vs. legitimation - For O’Connor, there was a tension between the two: The more states worry about accumulation, the less legitimate they seem to citizens. And the more they worry about legitimation (building pensions, medicare, helping people meet their needs), the more they tax and harm accumulation… o Looking legitimate in the eyes of the population o Tension between the two o States have both – keep both happy Counterpoint to the structural theory 2: - The “Frankenstein” problem: - Criticism in the strongest possible terms 1. If the state is run directly by capitalists, it’ll be a basket case. Stable capitalism requires: costly investments in education, infrastructure, training, regulation of finance/ monopolies, control of predatory business practices, counter externalities. This is all against the short run interests of any capitalist & if they ran things, they wouldn’t do it o If the state is run by capitalists, the state will be a mess, it will be a basket case o You need investments in education o This is the stuff capitalists would not like to do o All of this would be seen as a cost o This is in the long run, against the short run interests 2. Thus: to do the above you need states to have real autonomy from capitalists, AKA: “relative autonomy of the state” (Poulantzas) o The state has to be a little separate 3. BUT: if you give states the power, independence, & capacity to help the long-term interests of capital, it also has the power the hurt it o Capacity to help, you also give them independence to hurt the long run o Able to do good/bad to capitalist o State can become a monster o Independence between capitalist 4. Conclusion: the state can become a monster capitalists can no longer control (Offe) Counterpoint to the structure theory 3: - Labour parties and the labour movement: - As noted in the exploitation discussion, the position of labor in economic life gives it structural power: by virtue of being needed, being necessary for production, being exploited, it has power other actors do not o This means that with sufficient organizational capacity, labour – organized through movements or parties – can extract concessions from firms o Yes, employers have structural power; that’s the systemic theory of the state, but the place of labor gives them countervailing structural power - Made by Chibber - Connections to exploitation - Labor also has the structural Power - The exploited has structural power - They have power that other actors don’t - Swedan – less inequality - Labor can be used to form parties to shape nature of the state The Marxist Theory of the State: In Brief, à la Przeworski - Capitalists have power that institutions do not - This applies to everyone - You don’t need conspiracy theories – all in open - Unintended consequences Life in a “Capitalist Democracy” – Rogers & Cohen - What is a capitalist democracy? - Democracy is a system where all people enjoy meaningful participation in the decisions that affect their lives - Capitalist democracy takes decisions about investment and work-life off the table - How does capitalist democracy work? - Investment decisions are the basic decisions shaping our future. Examples: Will our future be green? Are jobs secure? What should work be like? - These questions are largely taken out of the sphere of public deliberation, and made privately o Debate btw Democracy and Capitalist democracy o Environment policies will be harder to pass So: the traditional conclusion… - For this reason, Marxists cannot simply take over the state; it’s very structure is capitalist, and blocks real democracy. - Lenin’s conclusion: Smash the state: “the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not “confine itself merely to laying hold of it.” - But Rogers & Cohen say no, there are big biases, but still wiggle room for people to have their needs met. After all: (1) legitimation matters; (2) the Frankenstein problem; & (3) labour sometimes organizes. This means popular forces have chances to rest some real gains & democratic control o Blocks democracy o Smash the state o Rogers/ Cohen – Wiggle room o We have seen policies that improve democracies The implication of the capitalist state; Or why socialists so often lose; or why we can’t have nice things (Dynamic Way) - Best case scenario for socialists: follow the “optimistic path”; what happens? 1. Attempts to move toward socialism  2. Disinvestment  3. “Temporary” collapse in wellbeing (“transition trough”)  4. Potentially abandoning the socialist path o We want a more democratic economy o What will happen if they do want to do that o Capitalist path  things will slowly approve o Transition  where election happens o Pessimistic path  Basket Case  Takes some amount of time o Optimistic – things get worse until they can get better  No evidence suggests you are on the optimistic path Can functionalism be defended? - Begin with the standard view, the basic form of explanation in social science, causal explanation: Outcomes are explained by their causes, the punch explains the bruise, the ice explains the slip, the collision explains the explosion o What explains X? Its cause, Y! o Y  X  Outcomes explained by their causes - Some complexity: o Proximate vs. ultimate causes  Proximate: because it is closer to explanation o Causal-intentional explanation (The ball rolled because the boy kicked it, he intended to, and did) versus causal-non-intentional explanation (The forest was destroyed because an asteroid hit it)  It has to go through someone’s head, they intend to do this Can functionalism be defended? - Functional explanation: controversial in the social sciences, here, the outcome is explained not by its cause but by its effect! Or a consequence of something explains that thing… o Debate on whether or not it is legit o WHAT EXPLAINS X? ITS EFFECT! Z! o X  Z  Outcome is explained by its effect  X has some unofficial consequence on some third case (z) - X has some beneficial consequences on some third thing, Z, which explains why X exists - Often ludicrous: Your nose (X) is there to hold up your glasses (Z) - Often it works; standard in biology: i.e., “Birds have hollow bones (X) because hollow bones facilitate flight (Z)” o Sometimes the explanation works (bird explanation) o Common in biology, not allowed in physic’s Functional explanation in social life: - The Malinowski Principle: All social phenomena have beneficial consequences that explain them. - Malinowski’s Trobriand Islanders: - What explains their fishing rituals before fishing at sea (but not at the lagoon)? - His answer: Fishing rituals (X) exist because they reduce fear (Z)! So, they are explained not by their causes, but because of their effects! o WHAT EXPLAINS FISHING RITUALS? THE EFFECT! REDUCING FEAR! o FISHING RITUALS (X)  FEAR REDUCTION (Z) Malinowski’s Trobriand Islanders example: - What explains fishing ritual? Its effect! Reducing Fear! - *look at slide - Malinowski was an anthropologist, you always have to do a functionalist explanation Examples! - In biology, the underlying causal mechanism is natural selection: Biology o Eg. “Giraffes have long necks because it lets them eat the leaves on the acacia tree” o Eg. “Birds have hollow bones because hollow bones facilitate flight”  Mutation process of a complete random chance  Third mutation leads to a wider neck, the longer neck remains - But, examples of functional explanations in social life, where things are explained by their effects: o Eg. “Shoe factories are big (X) because bigness makes them more competitive (Z)” [They are not big because their owners intentionally made them big (causal explanation), but because bigness leads to competitiveness … through economies of scale, and there is a structural selection process here that lets big firms survive and small ones fail] o Eg. Similarly, firms’ rules of thumb (say, their choice of technology) is explained not by its cause, but by its effect, profit-maximization. The effect benefits the firms, by keeping them around.  Shoe factory – they are not big because the owners made them big, Bigness lead to competitiveness, allowing it to survive, ROT, what technology to use, the effect which is the profit-maximization Functional explanation - Why is the shoe factory big? - Firm A  Small - Firm B  Medium - Firm C  Big  “More fit”, competitive o Importance of explaining “bigness” in effect on helping it survive - Note: Firm C may have become big through a variety of causal sequences: manager decisions, union pressure, unintended consequences of a merger, rules of thumb… however it happens, what is important in explaining “bigness” is its effect in helping it survive: it is explained by its consequences. But a really good functional explanation is one where the outcome is unintended and unrecognized by the relevant person, hence the manager acting on “rules of thumb” works best and rules out causal explanation. - Why is the giraffe’s neck long? - Giraffe-like animal A  Stronger neck - Giraffe-like animal B  Longer neck  “fitness” to env., reaching leaves - Giraffe-like animal C  Wider neck More Examples - Again, examples of functional explanations in social life: - Eg. Why do cults all force members to cut social Fes? The practice (X) can be explained by its effects: Cutting ties increases the survival chances of the cult: the ones that remain, the ones you see, did so. Isolationism increases “fit” to that environment. o Cults – similar features around the world o Why do cults force their members to befriend everyone, not talk to their family?  The practice can be explained by its effects  One cult that does isolate their members vs. one that doesn’t.  which one will last? – the cult that uses isolation - Eg. Why does hazing exist in gangs, frats, military units, etc.? Hazing exists (arguably) because of beneficial effects for the group; it improves solidarity & group cohesion, and those groups with more cohesion are more likely to survive over time. o Hazing – people involved dislike it o Bonding experience o Group that does this has the effects of solidarity and group cohesion o Those who went through pain to get it, will value it more o More cohesion – more likely to survive Still more Examples - Again, examples of functional explanations in social life: - Eg. Tithing (earnings paid to the church) exists not because people feel guilty or decide they want to tithe, rather it exists because of its effects: Religious groups with tithing traditions are more stable, thus reinforcing that belief system. o 10% of your income goes to the church o It exists because if its effects, able to be more stable o The one that survives will be able to reinforce beliefs - Eg. “The growth of bureaucracy (X) is explained by its effects, its beneficial consequences for incumbent congressmen (Z). [Mechanism: More bureaucracy = more problems for voters & more complaints to congressmen, who get re-elected because they’re best suited to understand and respond to those complaints (They’re better “fit” to the environment). But this also means that they have less time for legislative work, which gets pushed onto the bureaucracy, which therefore grows.] (Hardin 1980) Functional explanation - One way to think about this is in terms of “local maxima”: Take a local environment for granted, given that, particular traits/features can be compared on what increases chances of reproduction. - Local maxima o Some features will allow hazing to survive, others will not - Different birds have different wing lengths; each length confers different chances of reproduction on the organism. A given wing length is adaptive if it corresponds to a local maxima (on the left, wings are too short for efficient flight, on the right, too heavy). o The idea if it responds to local maxima o If you’re wings are short, can’t fly, if they are long, they may be heavy - Similarly, certain techniques of firms or practice of cults or frats, can be seen as “local maxima” given certain contexts, or “evolutionary attractors” – other failed cults, say, were too disconnected (right), or not disconnected enough (lee) o Degree of isolation: low levels vs high; if you are too low, you may be connected with friends/ family and they may try to get you out Bad functionalism - Lots of functional explanation in sociology is unclear, overblown, mystical, lazy, or lacking a mechanism: - Eg) Durkheim: “men do X, women do Y, because it keeps society together” (… or did powerful people promote that setup???) - Eg) Marxists: 1) Find some policy, 2) say it exists to serve the interests of capitalists (… or did people just want the policy???) - Eg) Mass incarceration in the US exists to sop up the supply of unemployed surplus labour (… or did people just vote for it???) - Eg) Lewis Coser: “Conflict within bureaucratic structures provides the means for avoiding ossification” (… or did competing ends just make it conflictual???) - Sometimes it might be a “functional description” (FD) rather than a functional explanation (FE): “Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy” or “rain benefits flowers” are clearly FDs not an FEs (there are benefits, but the benefits don’t help explain the thing) o You can’t just state it