I am preparing for a comprehensive examination in sociological theory. While I recognize that sociological theory comps vary considerably from graduate program to graduate program, it is obvious that most of what passes for sociological theory, are conceptual schemes that attempt to label and describe rather than to explain. For example, the closest thing to a straightforward definition of Bourdieu’s habitus is found in his Logic of Practice which states that the habitus is:
“systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them (Bourdieu, 1990: 53).”
I am convinced that the sole way to avoid these verbose attempts to label and describe – and to ensure an analytical sociology – is to overhaul Sociology 101 textbooks. What’s more, undergraduate professors ought to make undergraduate sociology students familiar with network analysis, rational choice, etc. I simply cannot think of a better method of explaining inequality than with the theoretical lens of networks. Can you?
Brian A. Pitt
Structured structures? I love it.
You have hit on one of my pet peeves. Obtuse descriptions of social phenomena are what sociology is famous for. Personally, I think it is something we just need to live with. Bothersome as it might be, descriptions provide a human understanding to what is ultimately a human science. Network analysis, and rational choice are useful for modeling interactions but they are very cold to the way people think about their world. I am of the opinion, that the descriptions frame inequality so that one can see how the people perpetrating it think of the world. It is a crucial micro-macro link.
Aren’t there limitless varieties of inequality? What does sociology think about this?
Dain: We’d say some inequalities are more important than others (Dare I say, the inequity of inequalities? This obtuse language thing is so easy). Thus the specific focus on class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. Other inequalities such as height or eye color don’t get as much attention since they don’t have as much as an impact.
Did that Bourdieu quote come straight from Van Den Berg’s chapter…?