Sociological theory Puns

Hi,

I'm a newcoming sociology major, just about halfway through an introductory sociology course.

For a while, I've been searching for opportunities to learn beyond the scope of my courses, and one of my prominent interests has been classical sociological theory, for which I have not taken a class on yet. I have always been intrigued, for instance, by the works of Durkheim and Weber. By now, I've tackled many classical and contemporary theorists in my intro course, so I'm aware of their respective biographies and contributions to the field. And, needless to say, I've already skimmed through a few chapters of a theory textbook, but this became rather too streneous. Indeed, such a textbook—with its austere language and graphics—is more preferable in an academic, classroom setting, and not for one pursuing a "self-study" of sorts.

So, at this point, I'm sort of fraught with confusion on how to actually approach theory itself. Some say to use textbooks due to difficulty; others say to just pick up the classical works. Textbooks, indeed, are helpful in explicating the historical and social contexts of each theorist and their chief contributions, but would it not be more pragmatic to read the actual theorists at this point? That's the whole dilemma. Recently, I have been contemplating to purchase the classics themselves, but I don't want to make any potential mistake. But, in my opinion, it is much more pleasing to read the classics myself than to peer through rudimentary secondary-source summations. After spending a hefty sum on a textbook that I'd remark to have been a no-show, I'd feel quite hesitant to buy another one.

Thus, if I could just ask those who are experienced in this matter, that for an amateur who only has some basis in sociology and the classical theorists thus far, how should I approach the study of the classical theorists? All responses are appreciated.

I need the 11ed of this book.

Hello! I'm in a sociological theory class and the professor is asking for the 3rd edition of this book, but the sites I find only have the 2nd edition, I was hoping someone would have a pdf copy, that would be amazing, thank you!

ISBN-13: 978-1119410911

ISBN-10: 1119410916

Title says it all ^ any advice or past experiences greatly appreciated just so I can get an idea of the course and the professor.

Anyone have this textbook? thank you

I am stumped trying to create my research question, I am choosing gender and ethnicity as my area and the question I originally formulated was "What effect has the Black Lives Matter movement had on workforce for people of color? " My professor said this is too broad, I am looking for any feedback on how to formulate this as a more defined research question.

Some questions I look to answer with this research is, have more doors opened for POC due to BLM's movement, has the bar been lowered for POC due to BLM shining a light on education differences between POC and non POC.

Hey everyone, there is a lot of sentiment here stating that everyone here is super early in crypto and this is somewhat true. There is a theory regarding technology adoption in a bell curve that is called the Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Here I'll take a look at the top 3 categories and sum them up just in case you don't feel like reading the paper.

The key term the paper uses is "innovativeness" and defines it as "the degree to which an individual is relatively early in adopting a new idea then other members of a social system." It is measured by compaing how much of someone has/uses an idea compared to others of their social network.

• Innovators: top 2.5%: These are the people who created cryptos and invested heavily upon their inception. People like Vitalik, Charles, Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, etc. with cryptography backgrounds. They are also considered to have "substantial financial resources, and the ability to understand and apply complex technical knowledge." They are also characterized to be calculated risk takers and are willing to work around issues when they arise in their vision of technology.

• Early Adopters: The next 13.5%: These people tend to be more popular in the public opinion. "People in the early adopter category seem to have the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most social systems. They provide advice and information sought by other adopters about an innovation." This sounds like people who bought BTC/ETH back in 2014-2015 and have made a substantial amount of money off of it where new investors ask them for advice. "The early adopter is usually respected by his or her peers and has a reputation for successful and discrete use of new ideas." This can extend to investing gurus who have helped pioneer the BTC cycle like Bob Loukas or people who help educate others about the space such as Andreas Antonopoulos.

I believe there are some early adopters present here, but if you have entered in the most recent bull run I consider that to be around the tail end here or beginning of the next section

• Early Majority (34%): Classified as people who "will adopt new ideas just before the average member of a social system. They interact frequently with peers, but are not often found holding leadership positions. Their innovation-decision time is relatively longer than innovators and early adopters, since they deliberate some time before completely adopting a new ide

Inspired by recent "what's conspiracy theories do you believe" and "sociological hot take appreciation" threads. What personal theory do you have about a social or psychological phenomenon?

I know it might seem a bit odd, but I'm only really being introduced to sociology now that I am in University. I am trying to find a Sociological Theory that could be a reason for socioeconomic inequality. If anyone could help, I'd be hugely grateful.

I'm currently working between the social conflict theory and the functionalist theory. But could do with whatever help you all have to offer.

Hi, literature student here. Im doing a dissertation on The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson. I want to do a sociological approach that delves into the concept of femicide(the killing of women) which there is abundance of statistics in the novel. Each chapter showed abuse and dehumanization of women in many household and social settings.

To sum up the story, the serial killer is addicted to rape/murder. I concluded that he kills women because society itself is neglecting women’s safety/rights. When the inspector asked the killer “why all the killings” he answered “Because it’s so easy,” and “Women disappear all the time. Nobody misses them. Immigrants. Whores from Russia. Thousands of people pass through Sweden every year.”

I did not know that sociological approach would be so broad and I keep changing my study objective with every article that I found. I could not pinpoint the right sociological theory for this discourse. Suggestions from you experts would be appreciated. By the way, is cultural studies the same as sociological approach?

I want to learn more about internal migration from rural to rural areas (e.g. from one village, camp or minesite to another). Is this something that sociologists look into?

I’m wondering because I found no sociological theories explaining why some people would/wouldn’t migrate from one rural area to another, and I’m beginning to wonder if this is even considered relevant to sociologists?

Its with Ashley Ostroot and is an 8-week course this summer. All online, asynchronous. I'm looking for an easy class to take along with my job this summer so I'm wondering about it's difficulty. I'm attracted to it because its all online (flexible for my schedule) and, well, its required for sociology majors lol. thanks

I just started dipping my toes in gender theory (because I’m beginning to identify as non binary) and would like to learn more about the historical/sociological theory behind this, I’m a nerd so I want to research and understand:

What is gender? How does gender differ from sex? How has society historically interpreted non cis people? What does it mean to identify as a “man” or “woman” Have non binary people always existed?

There's a lot of famous social thinkers who are often labeled "sociologist" or "philosopher" or "social critic" and they are studied in many disciplines but it's unclear exactly where they fall. For example, Habermas and Foucault are studied in sociology but are also labeled philosophers. Are there figures like this today that have significant overlap (I know habermas is still alive, but I mean emerging figures)? Is the age of "social thinkers" with grand theories over? Are they still out there but concentrated in philosophy? Or does sociology still have big theorists?

If there is such a theory or smth similar, what is it called? I'd like to know more about it.

If this is the wrong sub, can someone direct me to a more appropriate one for this question