Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 28 January 2006

Sociology has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Older discussion

hey, help me please!!! i want to know the history of scientific sociology!!!! tnx... email me on sanosuke_04@yahool.com,, tnx..

I'd like to see some reference to sociology and the internet. Wiki's are a sociological phenomenon, and the co-ordination of anti-Iraq demonstrations accross the planet was internet dependent. The concept of communities online has been discussed elsewhere but these two aspects are newer. Rowena

The sociology page seems to me rather messy -- most of it are links to special sociologies, sociologists or sociological schools and methods. Maybe w should clean it up and rewrite it majorly. In the present state it looks like sociology isn't a science, but rather a colourful conglomerate consisting of very different parts. I don't think that's right. --till we *)

There might be good interdepartmental politics reasons within universities for promoting sociology as a science, but speaking as a sociologist myself, I'm of the view that 'colourful conglomerate consisting of very different parts' is a more apt description of sociology than is the term 'science'. To that extent the page reflects what it is. But in any case the page certainly looks much more informative than it did in November last year (when the above comment was made). I'm a relative latecomer to this page in any case, and I appreciate the way its developing (June 2003). (Olly).

I removed the recently added noosphere.cc link, because this seems to be one very special project ("integrative knowledge"), which could be classified as one sociological method if you take the category in a wide sense. I think it's better to use external links that link to sociology portals and source websites than to websites for special theories and methods. Otherwise, I think I could add a dozen or so websites linking to my pet theories.

BTW: Top-adding or bottom-adding? --till we *) 19:29 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

Removing these two paragraphs because (1) If I don't understand what they mean, there's no chance in hell an average layman will; and (2) they look a lot more personal than neutral reportage of the field. Mr. Clihor, please note that it is Misplaced Pages's policy not to include "original research", or to support unconventional theories except to report on their existence. We are an encyclopedia. The purpose of an article here is to give a layman a basic understanding of present knowledge in the field. If you want to write commentary, speculation, and original research, you should clearly mark it as such and keep it on second pages (for example "H. W. Clihor on Time") --LDC

However, in deference to Mr. Comte, Social Psychology, yet another discipline has embarked upon the study of how society's structure influences individuals and groups. Perhaps one of its founders, W.I. Thomas' definition of situational dynamics best describes how these varied disciplines might be related: He wrote: "If you define a situation as real, it is real to you in its consequences...however, your definition of a situation may be influenced by how others define the same situation."

This simple paradigm calls into question the four disciplines of Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, Social Psychology and Traditional psychology and how they relate to each other and to their various definitions of society. Perhaps they should be grouped into a single discipline called Cultural Sociology. (Which would include all four disciplines and certain studies within Economics, History, Political Science, Statistics and Chaos Theory.)

The topic Situational Dynamics sounds interesting. Tell us more. --Ed Poor

From the rest of the text submitted by Mr. Clihor over the day, he seems to be what we old hands on the net call a "mild psychoceramic"--i.e., a crackpot. I seriously doubt that anyone could learn anything useful from him. Let's not encourage him. --LDC

I'm not sure to whom I am speaking. But as an "old hand" on the internet as well, crackpot seems derisive, deleterious and more than overtly limited in its most demonstrative attempt at true crtiticism. I guess name-calling is the last bastion of the uninformed. LDC overlooks the fact that multi-disciplinary studies of social dynamics and situational dynamics have been conducted for over a half century. Perhaps if LDC took at look at the collected topics of Social Psychology, Aggression Theory, Studies in Emotional Arousal, Cognitive Dissonance, Propoganda and for that matter a host of articles too numerous to mention the light of illumination might burn away an indifferent veneer. Please, if deletions are to occur at least have them available for peer review...by at least someone somewhere capable of making an intelligent decision. Further, the ceramic nature of pscychology is an interesting concept. (LOL). I hope we can continue this discourse with LDC and maybe come to some agreement upon which material is fodder for further dicussion, inclusion and who indeed may not be psychoceramic, but an "unschooled, or biolgically silent burro" of which other minds might glean a fitting demonstrative conclusion to LDC's interesting "criticisms".

Sociology problem oriented?

Removed this: Sociology is a problem-oriented discipline. It examines actuall (sic) social problems such as racism, sexism, mostly in developed countires such as the United States for two reasons: (a) most of it is already covered above, and (b) the remainder is nonsense. Sociology is no more "problem oriented" than a host of other disciplines - psychology is an obviolus example, and less so than several (consider criminology).

Of course, many sociologists are "problem oriented" - but saying this is one thing, saying that it is "a problem oriented discipline" is quite another. The two senses in which sociolgy might best be regarded as "problem oriented" are (a) insofar as it is a subject area often taught to aspiring social workers - but note that they themselves are not "sociologists", they are social workers with some sociological training alongside the training they had in several other areas - and (b) in the rather narrow historical sense that 19th & early 20th century functionalist sociology grew up in response to the twin problems of "how do we explain these massive social changes", and "how do we respond to the explanation offered by the conflict theorists (in particular, Marx)?"

(Please excuse my very belated entry here. I did the edit and said "see talk", then got called away by work (the work I get paid for, I mean) for quite a few hours.) Tannin 08:03 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Needs work

SLR commented just now: rewrote the first paragraph; the rest sure needs work! Alas, he is absolutely right. For an entry with such a long edit history, this one is vapid, disjointed, and damn near useless. Some items to consider, in no particular order:

1: SLR, thankyou for providing that new introduction, no doubt at short notice and more-or-less off the top of your head. It's a vast improvement, but I'm afraid I'm going to take issue with it just the same. To me, it reads as a good short introduction to Durkheim and his followers. I don't think it applies nearly as well to Compte or Marx, and possibly not to Weber either. (But I am weak on Weber and wouldn't push that last thought strongly.) This comment notwithstanding, for the time being I think it's more important to concentrate on other areas, and come back to the intro when the rest of the entry hasd some shape and rigour.

You are welcome, and you are absolutely right about the limitations of what I wrote -- although I hope that it can still provide a working basis. I am not a sociologist, although I have a pretty good grasp of its history and current practice. I think the main limitation of what I wrote is that it reflects U.S. sociology. The article certainly needs at least a paragraph on "critical sociology" and "humanistic sociology" (I am thinking of Gouldner and C. Wright Mills and maybe Reisman) in the U.S. and "Cultural Studies" in Great Britain (I am thinking of Hall -- it seems to me that in the UK cultural studies = sociology + marx which is quite different from what the term means in the U.S.). But anyone outside the US should know that US sociology, regardless of its history, remains dominated by those two gifts of Durkheim, functionalism and quantitative methods.

Ideally, the article should indeed provide a solid history, including non-sociologist forbears like Compte and Marx; classic sociologists like Simmel, Durkheim, and Weber, as well as Schutz and Mead and their heirs (the fact is, Misplaced Pages just needs top-notch articles on these people; I myself have put a fair amount of work into the Marx article and am pretty satisfied, but I cannot speak to the others). The risk of such a history is that it can idealize what sociologists would like to think of themselves, or what they think sociology ought to be. Such an account, though valuable, ought to be balanced by a fair assessment of institutionalized sociology: what kind of sociological research must one do to get a job at a top institution? What kind of research gets big grants? Personally, I love Simmel, but how many graduate students (especially outside of the elite schools) read him? I love Giddens (at least, the early Giddens) and Garfinkel -- but how many graduate students these days are working within their respective projects? Who dominates the professional organizations? (Aren't these precisely the questions a sociologist would ask, if conducting a sociological study?) I am not the perfect person to do this, but this is nevertheless a good part of what I think the article should become and I hope others like Tannin can start filling in the gaps and reorganizing it.

I have some other scattered remarks but in the absence of anything else, I agree with everything Tannin writes here, Slrubenstein

I don't know about US sociology, but I do know, that Marx, Simmel, Giddens and Garfinkel *are* read and used in sociology in continental Europe. Quantitative views and Durkheimianism isn't the whole of the world ... till we *)

2: The list of branches is chaotic and needs structuring into coherence. Most of the entries on it are just empty links. I am inclined to put it here for now and replace it with a shorter list. (Better a little bit of information hat makes sense than a lot on info that makes nonsense.)

210.21.221.178 10:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)Ed Nilges: I have tried to add some of the requested depth to the social theory section which I think was very superficial...while maintaining NPOV, by writing my change as a dialog between scientific sociology and "theory" which doesn't terminate in blows, and accusations of "cheese eater" and "nerd". I started by scare-quoting mainstream. Come on, guys, globalize.

Branches

• environmental sociology
• economic sociology
• functionalism
  • Note: disambiguated version is functionalism (sociology) --Jerzy 06:05, 2004 Feb 10 (UTC)
• human ecology
• industrial sociology
• interactionalism
• social conflict theory
• micro-sociology
• political sociology
• rural sociology
• social control
• social development
• social engineering
• social movements
• social theory - explain social behavior in a few principles.
• sociology of knowledge
• sociology of religion
• symbolic-interactionism
• systems theory

3: I'm not sure what to make of the link to Human ecology. Does it belong here? Is the Human Ecology stub itself of any value? The Systems theory link is also questionable. The entry there is purely anthropological in content, and I've not stumbled across systems theory as a branch of sociology. Does it belong in the top-level sociology article? If so, where does it fit in?

I probably should have deleted this link, but not being a sociologist I wanted to give whoever wrote it the benefit of the doubt -- but I agree with you, Slrubenstein

Systems theory is a major branch of sociology, at least in Germany (Niklas Luhmann), so it should stay here. (And the borderline between anthropology and sociology isn't that exact, either, but that is another issue). till we *)

4: There is a crying need for entries on the major theoretical perspectives. They should be described briefly in the top-level article and the links should lead to solid, comprehensive entries, not what we have now, which is a confused stub with a mixture of information and misinformation; nothing at all; and a one-sentence stub. I think I have a half-finished replacement on my home machine for functionalism, if so, I'll try to knock it into enough shape to plug in later this weekend.

Enough of my ranting for now. I've done a fair bit of cutting the ugly fat off the bones of this entry, I better go home to where my references are and start putting some healthy flesh on them instead (before someone reverts me for simply being destructive). Tannin 09:07 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi all, I just joined Misplaced Pages. A comment about branches. One way to get a handle on branches is to look at the American Sociological Association Section page. They list many of the branches listed above, and others. Also look at the International Sociological Assocation Research Committees.

Hope this helps. gene, April 20, 2004

gsociology *)

Re Human ecology

Re Human ecology -- that is, as far as I know, a scientific field or discipline that emerged in the wake of the formation of ecology / environmental sciences. It looks onto human beings as part of eco-systems (including built environment, industrial society) and trys to apply the principles of the science of ecology on the living being "human". So it is -- AFAIK, and a bit like sociobiology -- in so far similiar or related to sociology, that it looks onto the human being and its behavior/actions, but with a background rooted in natural science. I'll try to enhance the h.e. entry. -- till we *) 15:30, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Some additions and changes

I added some sentences (e.g. qualitative branch), and I deleted the following, because it seems to me (and I am a studied sociologist ;-)) a rather minor and special issue, maybe valid for Durkheim, but not valid for sociology in general.

One noticeable point in sociology is it distinguishes troubles and issues. In sociology, troubles occur in individual context. For example, the couple may divorce because of personal reasons such as having affiar. On the other hand, issues occur in social context. For example, the expansion of working hours may increase the divorce rate. Sociologists believe the increase of divorce rate is not explained by the personal matterns but by social context.

If someone wants to put it back, I would rather like to hear an explanation, why this distinction is relevant for sociology at large. BTW: I don't think it's wrong -- but I do think it's not important at that place in that article. till we *) 01:17 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Tillwe. Tannin

Tillwe, concerning systems theory -- I stand corrected; thansk for explaining it to me. As for the above passage, I myself have never heard of "troubles" and "issues" used this way. But I do think that the passage is trying to make an important point concerning what Mills called "the Sociological imagination" -- that the problems sociologists study are not individual or personal problems (although individuals may be aware of them, and may experience them personally) but rather social facts (yeah, quoting Durkheim, sorry) that can only be understood in terms of social processes and structures. I think this is a major issue that this article should develop. In part his is one way to distinguish sociology from psychology. But I think there is more at stake: have either of you seen Bowling for Columbine? At one point Michael Moore suggests to the manager (or publicist) of a Lockheed Martin plant that one reason American teenagers may be so violent is because they see their parents come home at the end of the day from having spent all their labors making weapons. The manager says, "I don't see the connection." Now, maybe Moore is wrong and this relationship is not a good "explanation" for American violence, but it still seems to me that this is a good example of the sociological imagination that is of a ratehr different sort than saying children are just naturally agressive, or this particular child had an unhappy home life, or that child was picked on in school. This sociological shift in perspective is in my opinion one of its great contributions to society in general, so I'd like to see it developed. I am not a sociologist as such so I hesitate making further changes to the article -- but if either of you can relate to what I am saying, perhaps you can incorporate it into the article in layman's terms, and also provide something of an intellectual geneaology to link it to specific sociologists -- I do not think this is a specifically Durkheimian view (you can find examples of it in Compte and Marx, at least) and it should be presented first in an ecumenical way, then more specifically...Slrubenstein

Yes, you are making good sense, SLR. In a way, that is what sociology is. I haven't forgotten my intention to expand this entry, just got distracted by various other matters over the weekend. (Something to do with having the attention span of a five-year-old in a lolly shop, no doubt.) Tannin

Social Theory

Added section on social theory. It is probably controversial and, at least, needs grammatical and style editing. Also, it's location on that page is certainly not optimal, but couldn't think of better way to handle. User:Lunchboxhero

Intro parapharsing Giddens

Added short intro paraphrasing Anthony Giddens Sociology (I only have the German translation, so if anyone has the English original, maybe s/he can improve the intro; what I was paraphrasing is the end of the first paragraph in chapter 1, Sociology: Problems and Perspective). -- till we *) 15:24, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

"Social" makes more sense in English in place of "societal', which sounds redundant in the same phrase with "societies". Does it catch the German sense equally well? I've made that change, on the assumption it does. --Jerzy(t) 01:39, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

This is of value only if it is typical, so there's no point in sourcing it except on this talk page:

Anthony Giddens -- in his textbook Sociology -- defines sociology as the study of the societal lives of humans, groups and societies. --Jerzy(t) 01:39, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

Uh, that's not that easy. I would say it is a fairly typical definiton (but then we can omit the "typical textbook" also), but on the other hand, every sociologist has it's own definition, so I would be happier with attribution (and maybe one or two other definitions from other textbooks, a la "Giddens says, sociology is ..., whereas ... defines sociology as the ..."). -- till we *) 13:27, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it could be interesting; plz show us more, either here or on the article. --Jerzy(t) 17:14, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

Seems to me a multi-person-project ;-) ... at the moment, I have the problem that I don't have that much time on my hands, and that I don't have that much textbooks on my hands (but in the university library, but see: time), and that most of the textbooks I could get access to are in German. So, English language sociologists etc., please look up in your textbooks how sociology is defined there, write it down here, and let us sort out the commons and the differences ... -- till we *) 01:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthropology

What is the difference between Socio and Anthropology? I have read a simplistic view that anthro is for people different from the researcher and socio for people like the resarcher.

Cultural anthropology and sociology

What is the difference between cultural anthropology and sociology? Neither one of our articles about the topics makes any mention of the other. I'm guessing the subtle differences between community, society, and culture are involved, which I roughly understand. I'm no expert though, so I figured I'd best ask here. • Benc • 06:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The differences are mainly historical, in that they came out of two different disciplines. Their subject matter has tended more and more to overlap. Sociology began in the study of contemporary societies in the developed world. Cultural anthropology began in the study of cultures characterized at the time as "primitive". -- Jmabel 07:09, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Franz Oppenheimer

A person using Misplaced Pages anonymously (IP address 217.188.*.*) is putting Franz Oppenheimer (by the way: the article about him still looks a bit like a babelfish translation) into the founding of sociology part of this article, and I'm putting him out. See some discussion about this here. As far as I know, sociology today is pretty clear about the influence found even today of Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. One could probably add half a dozen more -- including Karl Mannheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, Joseph Schumpeter and maybe also Franz Oppenheimer -- but I think, to list only the three first mentioned classics gives a good and neutral view on the current sociological consensus about who were the important founders of the discipline with lasting influence. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: http://agso.uni-graz.at/lexikon/klassiker/00cont/00_alp.htm#p shows (in German language) information about what they consider "50 most important classics" of sociology. Oppenheimer isn't included. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There is times in history were the "current consensus" reflects nothing more than the inertia of the academic world. This is why Franz Oppenheimer, one of the founding fathers and leader of german Frankfurt School has been put to the archive. Qui bono? One can be "important" or "fundamental". Oppenheimer was the all known and widely published fundamental thinker of sociology. Since todays fragemented sociology is one the verge of collapse, finding back to its roots will be the first step to refactor everything into a universal social science.
• Speaking of the courageous scientists of today, they are in no need to refer to any type of "hit lists" published by someone because they can use the original data provided over the internet and think independent. Hit lists are mindclosers. Mindclosers! The artist John Lennon is "fundamental" to the music world even though he's not in the pop charts of today.
• I would sincerely recommend to open the spectrum and use all the possibilities provided. As Henri Bergson points out, there is far more within the possible but unknown than within the known. If there is a dozen more, go ahead categorize and paste them! We owe this to all of our predecessors. As in technological research (to repair the enviromental damages) we should not drop any piece of sociological knowlegde (to overcome the social diseases) created.
• Why isn't Franz Oppenheimer included in the pop charts of todays important sociologists? This is a question of sociological thought itsself! This leads to scientific research dedicated to truth. You are invited to find out. Compared to the research fellows decades ago, you have no ecxuse;) Its all on the web.

Anonymous one, I agree with your last point: "Why isn't Franz Oppenheimer ... This leads to scientific research dedicated to truth." This may be the case, even if I don't believe in truth. But it points to one important issue: obviously you agree that the "current consensus" of sociology doesn't give Oppenheimer the importance he maybe deserves, and that it would need research to find out about the whys and whos of this phenomenon. But this means, that Misplaced Pages, which aims at giving a neutral view of mainstream reality (to say it bluntly), isn't the best place to fight for the inclusion of Oppenheimer in the influential classics. This is neither neutral nor is it a "proved fact" (what ever that may be). It is an ongoing struggle on the one hand and current research on the other hand. Both do not belong into a Misplaced Pages article informing about sociology. Both may have their place and their relevance to the Franz Oppenheimer article, and of course Oppenheimer should be included in categories and lists of sociologists. But not here, next to Marx, Durkheim and Weber.

Maybe an excerpt from the German Misplaced Pages helps to show my point. In the Franz Oppenheimer article there (our's is a translation of an older version), it is written:

Verbreitung der Lehre

Oppenheimer bildet eine Brücke zwischen verschiedensten Schulen, was ihm zu seiner Lebenszeit nirgends Würdigung einbrachte und was bis heute dazu führt, dass der Wert seiner Lehre noch nicht einmal im Ansatz erkannt wurde. Er entwickelt eine Denkweise, die jede herrschende Klasse oder denen die mit politischen Mitteln an die Herrschaft gelangen wollen, in Unruhe versetzen muss. Seine Werke wurden 1933 in Deutschland verboten und eingezogen. Die Art, wie er die Verhältnisse seiner (und unserer) Zeit grundlegend in Frage stellte und dann einer unspektakulären und konsequenten Lösung zuführt, ist der eigentliche Wert seiner wissenschaftlichen (Beweis) Methode.

Damit wird auch erklärt, dass er nahezu nicht mehr sichtbar ist, obwohl seine Arbeiten für die Lösung der sozialen Frage aktuell sind. Für jene, die auf der Suche nach der großen Geschichte sind, wird er als neue Entdeckung in Erscheinung treten.

To paraphrase this in English: "Spread of Oppenheimers methods - Oppenheimer formed a briged between different schools. This leads to ignorance about his work at his lifetime as well as today. His way of thinking was seen - and has to be seen - as problematic by every ruling class, so consequentially his works were forbidden in 1933 Germany. This helps to explain why he is invisible until today, even if his work is very important for solving the social question of today. He will be a big discovery for those who look out for him." -- This says all, doesn't it? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are enforcing a doctrine that screws up the intention of wikipedia. YOU are actually destroying the absolute and non-negotiable NPOV. By the way, YOU try to enforce your point of view, your german mainstream - rtfm on WP:NPOV.

If you don't believe in truth, why are you doing this? Misplaced Pages is not about "giving a neutral view of mainstream reality". Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. Germans never seem to change. The human race is more than the Germans. Sociology is more than what you learn in Germany. Come on, guy, globalize! Expand your horizon. We know Franz Oppenheimer alog with libertarian style writers like Thomas Jefferson, Albert J. Nock, J. Stuart Mill and others. He was mentor to Adolf Lowe. ... I searched them and found this german website for you: http://www.lsr-projekt.de/msinda.html .

FYI: i digged up some german websites on Frankfurt School and Oppenheimer, may be you can read:

http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/presse/rzpotsda.htm

http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/institut/geschichte1.htm

I don't need to fight for inclusion because Misplaced Pages includes all. NPOV! Its not my job to teach you the history of sociology.

I've been aware of the excerpt from the German Misplaced Pages long time ago. Fine to the german wikipedia and no use for english version. It's true but partial. Your translation i don't understand to go for argument. To me this goes like the typical german way of interpreting reality. Do you learn to go this one-way at school? Outside germany (like U.S.) he is quite known. No one would bother to put him among the theorists of sociology. They're not so much into Marx but no one has erased that figure! By the way: you erased a name you're not familiar with just to go for your doctrine. Think of that! If everyone would erase the names he don't know about! The opposite way would be propper to get an NPOV style. May be i'll dig up some original papers sometime at library so the wikipedia community has something to build upon. May be you have to look up yourself. I wouldn't build upon the teacher at school. They are mindclosers most of the time!

What makes science science? Science is leaving open options for revisions (Alfred North Whitehead). Enforcing your narrow mind you are on the opposite of science, destroying options and therefore revisions. May be the cause is that you don't care for the colored truth, as you've written at the beginning.

As I said, dear anonymous participant, please show us an introductionary academic text about sociology (from the US or from somewhere else) that mentions Oppenheimer in the same league as Marx, Weber and Durkheim, and I'll be happy to include him so prominently in the article. As far as I know, for example Giddens Sociology does not mention him. BTW: I'm happy with Oppenheimer in the list of sociologist, and I think it would be a good idea to mention him maybe in a separate "history of sociology" article -- but I really don't understand your "typical german deletion of names" point. Put it the other way round, we should mention all of Simmel, Mannheim, Schumpeter, Tönnies (to name only a few Germans) as well as all the Chicago school people as well as ... in the section about the history of sociology. Do you think we should do this? Or do you think there is something like a relevance criterium?

• yeah you got it, finaly! - all are relevant!

Read about Misplaced Pages:NPOV -- this isn't identical to "all are relevant". And without relevance (that is: drawing distinctions), there wouldn't be any science. BTW: it is seen as not very nice behavior to edit links into talk texts written by others. But do you know what http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/fo32a.htm is about?. Have you read it? It's a long rant about the state of sociology in Germany in 1932 as seen by Franz Oppenheimer. I could publish a text about what I find important in sociology on my website, call this "Introduction into sociology by Till Westermayer", and it won't give me any more academic relevance or reputation. You can't decide yourself if the rest of the world thinks your ideas are that of a genius or to be ignored. So, you still haven't presented a actual introduction into sociology talking about Franz Oppenheimer, US or not.

Oh yes, and http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/ep64a.htm is a talk from 1964 by the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe university of Frankfurt, published in their university journal. That is the same university which gave the professorship to Oppenheimer. Again no sign of relevance for the sociology of today!

till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if google is a good relevance indicator, but look at these numbers:

(all for "introduction to sociology" + name - wikipedia")

Max Weber 1.600

Karl Marx 1.100

Emile Durkheim 949

Robert E. Park 120

Joseph Schumpeter 18

Franz Oppenheimer 1

-- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• think about: wenn all of the Franz Oppenheimer writings in germany got banned and withdrawn from public in 1933, how could you know about him? google knows only what people write about and put on the www. at those times the www wasn't invented! i thought you knew that. Science is not about pop charts.

P.S.: What is this about typical Germans? And the libertarian POV mentioned above?

• those who ask don't know. those who know don't ask.

the oracle is ridiciulous

P.P.S. (sorry): Even http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/institut/geschichte1.htm says that Oppenheimer was seen as an outsider to sociology even at his time, and mentiones his influence not on sociology, but on the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany via Ludwig Erhard and others.

• he was the first one to the Chair for Sociology in Germany ever. So no outsider! Don't mess up. The center is not the outside.

Read your own reading suggestions. It says that even the contemporary (proto)-sociologists considered him an outsider, even in the center.

BTW: Social theory

What should we do with this long "history of social theory" narrative at the end of the article? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My whole being says, "Bag it!" But then I realized that it's the only major contribution to this page in months. Maybe those who particiated in the Franz O. shouting match above want to transfer some of that energy to the actual article, which is pretty horrid right now.--Jcdavis 09:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History of sociology

I suggest that all the history of sociology that is present here is transferred to the new article "History of sociology" and only a short resumé is left here. Then the link to the article "history of sociology" can be put also on the list in the article "history of science". --Eleassar777 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When this section is long enough, and the article is above 32kb, we will surely do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Social research methods

I added a small section about social research methods. I briefly mentioned the main methods used in sociology, and discussed how what theoretical position you take can change and alter your conclusions and preferred method use. I am a sociology major at Georgia State, so any suggestions or comments would be awesome. Please be kind, this is my first real addition. Thanks.

Noah 04:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I like the new picture -- we see at least one institution, groups, different people in interaction -- a food visualisation of sociology. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A point. Although I would like to see a more people. And more pictures. But I guess it's a start :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Cultural appropriation has just been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Public education and Flirting as well as Teenage pregnancy are also currently nominated on Misplaced Pages:This week's improvement drive and may be of interest to you. If you are interested in contributing, please vote or comment here: This week's improvement drive--Fenice 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Who? No, it is not even to FA status yet. What's your point?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

it does not have to be featured article quality. it just needs to be cleaned up for Misplaced Pages:Good articles or Misplaced Pages:Standard articles to qualify. -- Zondor 03:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon lead addition

I don't think the following belong in the lead, so I removed it, but maybe you can incorporate it somewhere else:--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

provided a scientific counterpart to settlement of houses, and also provided a disturbing insight of life in the slums (ghettos). Industrialization and urbanization were definitions used by the sociologists studying the slums

I agree with Piotrus with the above. Sociology covers a lot more than just the slums. Yes, it does help to explain the phenomenon, but since it is not the sole focus of sociology, it does not belong in the intro. Boneheadmx 01:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Perhaps there should be something about the criticism of sociology? Sociology is often criticized as an academic field, from what I've heard.

I've never heard of any criticism of 'sociology' itself. One can criticise particular doctrines which fall under the general heading of sociology (functionalism, marxism, feminism etc.) but sociology itself is simply the systematic study of human beings in a social context. I can't imagine what one could criticise about the concept of sociology itself. What would you want included? --Davril2020 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Specific research questions can certainly show theoretical and/or empirical disagreement over how much is individual, how much is cultural, how much is relational, how much is otherwise structural, etc. Other fields - psychology or economics, for instance - might approach a given question from different assumptions and attend to different mechanisms. Criticism of the whole premise, though, that social context can (and usually does) matter for explaining human activity seems unlikely to have any coherent proponents. - Ramseyk 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Need a Sociologist

On Anti-vaccinationists. Please. Midgley 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter