modernism and postmodernism: Lenski's Power and Privilege in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, so

User Generated

qzptvayrl20

Humanities

Description

Tickamyer, A. (2004). Between modernism and postmodernism: Lenski's Power and Privilege in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 22(2), 247-257.

In a .doc (Word) document of about 300-400 words, using APA format and citations (hint: any references cited throughout the course are in APA format!), write a report answering the following questions:

  • What are the essential concepts, ideas, insights presented by the author of the article? (NO quotations! If you do want to use specific information, paraphrase and cite your source.)
  • What connection can you make to any concepts and ideas presented in your chapter readings or the video(s) for this week? (NO quotations! If you do want to use specific information, paraphrase and cite your source.)
  • What did you like least about the article? What did you like most?

Make sure that you revisit the course readings, lectures, and/or videos. You must include at least one course reading (besides the required supplemental reading) in your analysis.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Between Modernism and Postmodernism: Lenski's "Power and Privilege" in the Study of Inequalities Author(s): Ann R. Tickamyer Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 2, Religion, Stratification, and Evolution in Human Societies: Essays in Honor of Gerhard E. Lenski (Jun., 2004), pp. 247-257 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648945 Accessed: 10-04-2017 20:20 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Theory This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Between Modernism and Postmodernism: Lenski's Power and Privilege in the Study of Inequalities* ANN R. TICKAMYER Ohio University Gerhard Lenski's classical work on stratification, Power and Privilege, was an effort to reconcile and to synthesize different approaches to inequality incorporated into the grand theories of the day. It anticipated a variety of developments in the theoretical and empirical understanding of inequalities. These include recognition of the multiplicity of inequalities; emphasis on race, class, gender, and other sources and systems of domination and subordination; and the intersection of these factors in complex patterns to create different standpoints and life consequences. The result was groundbreaking work that underscored the multidimensionality of stratification systems, the variability of their influences, and the notion that their intersection in itself has implications beyond the sum of component parts. In these ways his work foreshadowed the possibilities of finding common ground between modern and postmodern perspec- tives, to make Lenski the last grand theorist of modernity and a forerunner of postmodern theories of inequality. The publication of Power and Privilege by Gerhard Lenski in 1966 marked a watershed year for theory and research on stratification and inequality. Subtitled A Theory of Stratification, it followed in a long tradition of grand theory in sociology devoted to explaining the inequalities in the production, distribution, and consumption of societal goods and services, both material and intangible, as they varied across time and place. As a successor to the classical theorists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Lenski created a work that could be compared in scope to his predecessors while transcending their limits and incompatibilities and simultaneously benefiting from the methods and findings of modern empirical social science. The ambition of Power and Privilege (1966) included reconciling the diverse approaches of Karl Marx and Max Weber, Talcott Parsons and the elitists, Herbert Spencer and modern evolutionary theory, functionalism and its discontents, and applying the ensuing principles to the full sweep of human history. Partly inductive, partly deductive in its approach, its scope and comprehensiveness matched and even surpassed many of the classical theorists whose work it embraced. It entered the theory sweepstakes at a critical historical moment when social foment in the larger society and in the discipline initiated challenges to longstanding social truths and practices and to principles and standards of classical theory whose philosophical underpinnings were being severely questioned both by more recent empirically based theory and by newer theoretical expressions. In this paper, I attempt to locate this work in the larger intellectual movements that have buffeted sociology and social science in the ensuing years. *Thanks to Bernice McNair Barnett and Mary Beth Krouse for helpful comments and suggestions. Address all correspondence to Ann R. Tickamyer, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ohio University, Bentley Annex, Athens, OH 45701-2979; E-mail: tickamye@ohio.edu. Sociological Theory 22:2 June 2004 ? American Sociological Association. 1307 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005-4701 This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 248 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY STRATIFICATION THEORY The publication date, 1966, coincided with an auspicious moment in It coincided with the coming of age of the baby boomers and the tents they brought to the public arena. New social movements a peace and justice joined forces to create a broad sense of social unr Vietnam, second-wave feminism, cold-war skepticism, environm revolution, drugs, sex, and rock and roll were in the air. These are not ments initiated by this cohort but ones many of its members embraced Power and Privilege was to be read by a generation of students who to large questions about inequities in the shape and form of the distrusted authority, who chafed against cold-war repression, and with rejections of middle-class mores and morality. The fomentation of the campus and the streets was reflected in acad became popular to compare students to oppressed minority grou resistance and change, and to seek scholarly underpinnings for so time when functionalism still held sway in sociology, the dominant th fication appeared to be too comfortable with the inequalities embe quo. Although so-called conflict theories were not absent from t literature, and a revival of interest in Marxist theory and his cri underway, the work of Parsons and his students still firmly do considered to be mainstream social science and sociology.' Resistan emphasis on systems and stasis was beginning to pick up steam. A ground, the appeal of a contemporary theory of inequality that e and politics, that emphasized conflict and change, and that delibera of progress, all the while claiming to reconcile seemingly contrad irresistible. Elements of Lenski's Theory There are two possible approaches to examining Lenski's theory of stratification: a description of the substance of the theory itself, its concepts, arguments, formal structure, evidence, and findings; and a meta-theoretical analysis of its epistemological underpinnings. This paper focuses on the latter; however, it is necessary to begin with a brief overview of the basic elements of the theory before turning to the second task. The complete exposition of the theory and the evidence marshaled to support it are found, of course, in Power and Privilege itself. What follows is neither a comprehensive review of the theory nor a critical assessment but rather is a starting point for examination of its influence at a critical juncture in the development of theories of stratification and inequality. Lenski's theory of stratification begins with the most basic question of how to explain the unequal distribution of power and privilege in society-the fundamental question of "Who gets what and why?"-and moves on to examine the variation in answers across different social settings, particularly across different societies organized by their dominant mode of production. Lenski defines social stratification as 'The most widely read and subsequently debated theory of stratification, the Davis-Moore theory, argued that the ranking of social positions reflected their importance to society and the relative difficulty of finding competent role incumbents to carry out social tasks (Davis and Moore 1945). Thus, stratification and consequent inequality was a recruitment process designed to ensure smooth social functioning rather than the outcome of power struggles and oppressive practices. This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM 249 "the distributive process in human societie are distributed" (Lenski 1966:x). The theory i unit of analysis, but it applies to both inter- and fundamental postulates assumptions about both of individual units within social systems. The compatible. "We must learn to think of distri neously system needs and unit needs, with eac 1966:34, emphasis in original). Lenski proceeds to outline the dynamics and which revolve around the distribution of surplus dynamics postulate that power primarily deter fore, ensuing privilege is largely a function of p there will be little variation in power or priv butive system is the generation of surplus (" minimum required to keep producers alive and primary determinant of surplus is type and l nology increase surplus and ultimately the ab addition to technology, secondary variation in environmental factors and by military and po plus produces an elite group in a given societ forms, from force to persuasion, from coerci variety of institutionalized forms. While control of power, it is not generated solely from private production as in Marxist theory, but may have a ily political ones. Structure consists of elaboration of the basic individuals, classes, and class systems. Individu providing the occupants for different power persons in a society who stand in a similar p specific form of institutionalized power" (Le positions in the stratification literature such as c classes with particular bases and characterist mentally different types of strata. Classes thems or "a hierarchy of classes ranked in terms of with examples consisting of class systems base ethnicity. In theory, almost any stratifying v other source of "categorical difference" (Tilly system. The coexistence of different class sys tributive systems are multidimensional, and t span, shape, degrees of mobility, interclass h totality of class systems constitutes the organ are basically society-wide phenomena. The causal dominance of technology forms component of the theory: the development of a t fore, distributive systems, based on technolo scheme is borrowed from the anthropologica Childe (1936, 1951) and Goldschmidt (1959). S and-gathering societies through different levels if the work were to be updated today, it wou notions of postindustrial societies. While they ar This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 250 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY in fact they represent "a overall technological effic tional markets divided by 1966:93). Most of the rest of the volume is devoted to examining the empirical evidence culled from the vast historical, anthropological, and sociological literatures to test the viability of the general theory. While some modifications are made, particularly in elaborating on the distinction between technology and economy and elevating the importance of ideological factors, in the end Lenski concludes that the basic outline of the theory holds. And indeed, in this and in subsequent work, he reaffirms the primacy of subsistence technology as the fundamental organizing principle for human societies and their systems of power and privilege (Lenski and Lenski 1970; Lenski, Lenski, and Nolan 1991; Lenski 1994). Synthesis and Critique There are numerous other elaborations, details, and components that flesh out this bare-bones description. For example, an important corollary of the multidimensionality of class systems is the phenomenon of status inconsistency or crystallization.2 The potential to occupy multiple but inconsistent ranks in different class systems creates stratification outcomes different from those predicted when all positions are congruent. Numerous other concepts such as citizenship, types of power and authority, and notions of the circulation of elites are incorporated into the theory. The student of stratification will recognize the rich sources of this theory in a variety of classical and contemporary theory and research, ranging from Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and C. Wright Mills to Karl Marx, Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto, the mid-20th century functionalists, and contemporary anthropologists, all of whom Lenski credits and embraces as he weaves them into the general theory. Clearly, the impetus for this project was to take the numerous strands of theory and research beginning with the earliest social analysis from ancient times and use them to build a synthesis that made sense of the divergent approaches. In his own words, "I found myself confronted .., .with the task of bringing together in a meaningful way the diverse and often contradictory contributions of the various theorists .... Eventually I came to see that theories as contradictory as those of Marx and Mosca, or of Dahrendorf and Parsons, can be understood within a single, unified framework .... Applying the Hegelian diaclectic to the past, one easily discovers a meaningful pattern in the otherwise confusing history of stratification theory" (Lenski 1966:vii-viii). Clearly also, although less explicitly stated, a fundamental goal of this project was to rise above the increasing rancor of those vying for theoretical primacy, muting the futile exchanges between functionalist and conflict approaches to stratification theory. Synthesis represented both an intellectual requirement and a political necessity. If we examine the intellectual underpinnings of Lenski's mission, rather than the substance of the theory itself, a number of elements can be abstracted. In particular, the approach outlined in Power and Privilege has the following characteristics: 2Lenski (1954, 1956) previously had been an active contributor to this research tradition, and although it does not form a major part of Power and Privilege, it is a central component of his larger contribution to the field of stratification as well as one of the few places where he focuses on the individual as the unit of analysis. This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM 251 (1) It is synthetic and integrative. As discus differing perspectives, ideologies, seeming and interpretations. This task is accomplis self-conscious scrutiny of the places where pr suggest competing explanations, explicit ev bridges differences or concludes that the p one side or another, and by its sweeping an past work into its framework. (2) It is grounded empirically. Although cert some cases dated, it nevertheless makes an ical debate into empirical questions, marsh from an impressive array of disciplines, lit observation. (3) It is rational and analytical, attempting to use formal criteria to organize and test its major tenets in a way that is no longer in style but that makes the arguments transparent and at least hypothetically testable. As indicated previously, it is both deductive and inductive, setting out a formal logic for the theory and then holding it up to empirical test and modification. The elements of the general theory are outlined using a framework of formal deductive logic that lays out assumptions, postulates, laws, and hypotheses as well as heuristic models that represent the basic components of the theory and their relationships. (4) It advocates use of "variable concepts" broken down into their component parts. Both of these practices are advocated as a means of promoting synthesis of competing and contradictory approaches through reformulating basic problems and concepts. Variable concepts are contrasted with the limitations of categorical concepts that promote "either/or" logic and a restricted range of possibilities. "Breaking down compound concepts into their constituent elements" (Lenski 1966:21) promotes clarity of conceptualization and the empirical specification of suggestive but fuzzy generalizations. (5) It situates the study of inequality inextricably in the study of power and politics and vice versa. Now this seems obvious and trivially true, but at the time the work was published, it was quite possible to see these as separate disciplines and dimensions of social life. Whole theories of stratification prevailed that were oblivious to power and politics, and students of politics could study their subject as a social system as if it could be divorced from the exercise of power. Lenski's work was not the first to argue the link, but the definitiveness of his arguments make it one of the last required to make this case. (6) It is grounded in time and space. Unlike the vast majority of his contemporaries who were still immersed in efforts to create covering laws of human and social behavior typically removed from time and space, Lenski's effort at grand theory explicitly (and somewhat paradoxically) privileges context, placing historical time and movement and geographic space and place at the heart of his theory. Thus, the development of distributive systems is traced and is compared across different types of societies and historical epochs. The method used is taxonomic--societies are classified according to a taxonomy based on technological development that imperfectly reproduces either chronological emergence of different subsistence strategies or ecological determinism. Lenski refers to a societal taxonomy as a social map or as a means to bring order and to reduce noise in an abundance of imperfect data This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 252 SOCIOLOGICAL (Lenski 1994). transcend the act of the (7) It task Althoug the case-speci classification brings very early dimensions systems, it sole case laid of varia thefoun inequality provided components for THEORY of a bas inequalit sources of ine scholars. (8) It is simultaneously lucid, erudite, and accessible in a way that is all too rare in sociological writing and that puts it head and shoulders above the majority of both predecessors and successors. Although dated in some of its language and assumptions-the universal use of man for humanity, assumptions about women's roles-nevertheless, it expresses its ideas in direct language, avoiding much of the jargon of the work it builds on and providing clear explanations of its concepts. Elements of Modernism If we scrutinize these elements of Lenski's theory in conjunction with its substance, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this work epitomizes 20th-century modern social science with everything that is of value in high modernity-rationality, logic, and respect for empirical data and the methods of science. The goals and methods of Power and Privilege are avowedly scientific. The theory is elaborated in a deductive framework. Logic and chronicity are respected and form underlying principles of explanation. Explanation itself is the highest objective; it is to this purpose that the methods of social science are harnessed. What is sometimes labeled disparagingly as "linear thinking" forms the basis of the exposition and provides one of the major components of the clarity of the narrative. As part of the scientific enterprise it seeks to "isolate elements, specify relationships, and formulate a synthesis" (Rosenau 1992:8), a description of modernism that could be equally applied to Lenski's stated objectives. It seeks to represent an objective reality through a variety of techniques inspired by the natural sciences and holds out the promise of improved ability to test and to refine the model through improved tools and methods of empirical social science, including methods of quantitative analysis. In short, every- thing about its purpose, approach, and language is the quintessential project of modernism in social science.3 At the same time, there are a number of elements to this framework that are subversive to modernist thought and approaches, perhaps even subversive to its own objectives. In the next section, I argue that key elements in Lenski's theory and approach helped lay the groundwork for a postmodern approach to stratification, one that replaces a theory of stratification with the scrutiny of inequalities. 3Components of this characterization of modernism are sometimes identified and disparaged as positivism. I avoid using this term for a number of reasons: modernism is a broader movement that can be seen to encompass the different strands of epistemology identified as positivism; the term positivism has been applied so broadly as a pejorative label to empirical social science, especially using quantitative methods from the mid-20th century as to have become meaningless; and finally, modernism provides a better and a more philosophically equivalent comparison in its meaning and scope to the movement that challenges it-postmodernism. This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM 253 FROM MODERNISM TO POSTMODERNISM While Lenski's theory was not the last effort at grand theory in the trad social science giants such as Marx and Weber, it was a much more am than was typical of either contemporary or subsequent sociology. In some an anomaly from the very beginning in its marriage of empirical soc large-scale theory construction and its advocacy of quantitative meth tive model while at the same time using largely comparative-histor inductive framework. Its publication coincided with both the narrow mainstream sociology in quantitative models that purported to cons middle-range theory and with the broad rejection of this approach by qualitative methods and constructionist theories. In short, it was writ rising discontent with much of mainstream sociology, the rejection perspectives by broad segments of the academic and scholarly comm rise of postmodernism. Postmodernism 101 There are as many variants of postmodernism as there are postmodernists (Rosenau 1992:15; Featherstone 1988:207), ranging from "a synonym for the future" to a "specific philosophical perspective replete with epistemological assumptions, methodological preferences, and substantive foci" (Rosenau 1992:17). It is neither my intent nor competence to present a definitive or comprehensive account of this movement.4 Rather, I discuss its broad outlines to demonstrate the challenge to modern social science and what this has meant for the study of stratification and Lenski's contributions. Apart from the variety, fluidity, and lack of specificity of what is labeled postmodern, perhaps its most fundamental characteristic is its opposition to and rejection of the terms and procedures of modern science and, by corollary, social science. It i easiest to describe what it is not and what it rejects rather than what it represents ( suspect term in itself). In particular, postmodernism rejects objectivity, reality, and authority; rejects explanation; rejects deterministic arguments and models; rejects models themselves as part of a larger rejection of "representation"; rejects disciplinary boundaries; rejects globalizing and totalizing views and universals of any sort; reject strict ordering of chronology, temporality, or spatiality; and generally stands in opposition to all that is elevated by modern science. While the lack of unity in postmodern accounts makes it difficult to specify its positive components, and in its most extreme versions, there are few affirmative or prescriptive tenets, examination of the language of postmodernism suggests its basi approach. Rather than explanation, postmodernists tell a story. Text substitutes for reality and data, and it is free standing: the reader is free to read meaning into the text rather than to accept authorial intention. "Reading" substitutes for interpretation or explanation, and rejection of authority generally undermines any notion of object- ive truth. Thus, the purpose of social science is to decenter and to deconstruc received wisdom rather than to seek generalizations, patterns, and regularities or to construct global explanation. In place of causality and determinism, there is intertextuality, stressing "infinitely complex interwoven interrelationships" (Rosenau 1992:xii). Representation itself is rejected as impossible, inadequate, and repressive, 4While there are a number of accounts describing postmodern perspectives in sociology and even more that use them (Calhoun 1992; Richardson 1988; Seidman and Wagner 1992), much of what follows depends on Postmodernism and the Social Sciences by Rosenau (1992). This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 254 SOCIOLOGICAL thus the space are THEORY futility of const collapsed or stre from their normal linear r At its extreme, the postm science or the possibility of hand, social and its radicalism has p science and its criti biases that undermine theory can be classified i attempt to find the mid Wagner 1992; Calhoun 199 part of a new doctrine f relations, the importance relationships between par suspicion of universal law ments, and the rejection o all among standard operat in part can trace their l important theoretical ref Postmodern Influences on S At first glance, it appears and accomplishments in Having established the qu approach to social science postmodernist vision for understandings of stratif roots in Lenski's reformu In particular, in keeping perspectives and paradigm fication can be found in th status attainment models developments have had an a new of consensus feminist 5Rosenau in the theories (1992) divides stud of g postmod former fall into this extreme cate ways to justify a positive project 6The overall influence of Power citations are used, it would be en pedagogical use it has among socio its actual use in subsequent deve emerges. There are some clear including Collins (1975) and Tur (1978) and Huber (1991), but t technological determinism) or no language and limited and anachro its embrace by feminists almost study of gender inequality overto approach is not particularly con majority of prevailing explanati approaches). This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM 255 of theorizing about the intersections of race, class to trace a direct link between Lenski's work an see suggestive connections. Furthermore, whil considered postmodern theories in the stronges influenced deeply and shares many similarit approaches. A major component of feminist theories of ge tioning of what is usually identified as mainst Chafetz (1997) points out, there is little that is critiques. Virtually all can be found in other tr little interest in or relevance to women, gender they form an important unifying strand in m intellectual debt to postmodern approaches is u point theories as developed by Smith (1987, 19 importance of decentering male-centered theo diversity of multiple perspectives; the futility knowledge, especially under conditions of social and contextual knowledge; and the rejection of izing concepts, and either/or logic. As a substitu male-dominated mainstream theories, they adv everyday experience of a myriad of actors to in African Americans, and presumably, in principl influence of postmodern perspectives are obviou A closely related development that is partially th in general and Collins's work specifically is the gro class, and gender perspective to studying inequa that these systems of inequality coexist and inters juxtaposes forms of oppression not as "either/or" r can be experienced simultaneously and interactiv a primary means of representing this relations literature the model of a multiplicative rather t the relationship among the different sources of do approach can transcend these three systems to religion, and sexuality. Finally, one can simulta ation and subordination across the different s echoes the earlier formulations of status inconsi active relationship between different social ranks. critiques of the statistical metaphor of interaction intersecting sources of inequality is firmly establi These perspectives, along with a number of rel as critical race feminism (Wing 1997) and post Mohanty 1997), share certain common views wi indelibly stamped the study of social inequality matic in the study of stratification and inequality 7Actually, in recent work, both Collins (1998) and Smith (19 theories and postmodernism. They each mount vigorous criti reasons: postmodernism lacks a concept of the social and und action, and they draw clear contrasts with their own appr reasons discussed in this paper that a postmodern sensibilit significant divergences in specific assumptions and applicatio This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 256 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY to maintain a unitary sys social locations and identit system. Gender, race, and inequality both in concer with other sources such a were of interest to Lensk inequalities in the plural, stratification with its m strata. BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM Lenski is the quintessential modern sociologist with all the baggage At the same time, his work presages the insights and contributio modern approaches in his appreciation of context and of multiplicity, false alternatives, and polarized dichotomies in favor of a variable scien we speak of inequalities in the plural as when we now typically do, race, class, gender, and all the other sources and systems of dom ordination, when we look at the way these intersect in complex pa different standpoints and life consequences, and when we reject false d an oppositional logic, we are in many ways demonstrating the legac underscored the multidimensionality of stratification systems, the var influences, and the notion that their intersection in itself has implicat individual sum of component parts. In the spirit of synthesis and marks Lenski's effort to reconcile the conservative and liberal pe insights and debates of his contemporaries, his work foreshadows t finding common ground between modern and postmodern perspect may help to overcome the polemics and politics of our day and m synthesis. Power and Privilege was published early in the second half of the 20th century. Many of its details are open to question and to subsequent findings and understandings. Its language and assumptions reflect the time it was written, but its enduring contributions stand the test of time. These include supplying the bridge between the modernist study of stratification and the postmodern project of reading inequalities. REFERENCES Alexander, M. J., and C. T. Mohanty, eds. 1997. Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Leg Futures. New York: Routledge. Blumberg, R. L. 1978. Stratification: Socioeconomic and Sexual Inequality. Dubuque Calhoun, C. 1992. "Culture, History, and the Problem of Specificity in Social Theo Postmodernism and General Social Theory, edited by S. Seidman and D. Wagner. C Blackwell. Chafetz, J. S. 1997. "Feminist Theory and Sociology: Underutilized Contributions for Mainstream Theory." Annual Review of Sociology 27:97-120. Childe, V. G. 1936. Man Makes Himself London, UK: Watts. . 1951. Social Evolution. London, UK: Watts. Collins, P. H. 1990. Black Feminist Thought.: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM 257 . 1998. Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search Minnesota Press. Collins, R. 1975. Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science. New York: Academic Press. Davis, K., and W. Moore. 1945. "Some Principles of Stratification." American Sociological Review 10:242249. Featherstone, M. 1988. "In Pursuit of the Postmodern: An Introduction." Theory, Culture, and Society 5:195-217. Goldschmidt, W. 1959. Man's Way: A Preface to the Understanding of Human Society. New York: Ho Huber, J. 1991. "Macro-Micro Links in Gender Stratification." Pp. 11-25 in Macro-Micro Linkage Sociology, edited by J. Huber. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lenski, G. 1954. "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status." American Soci logical Review 19:405-413. 1956. "Social Participation and Status Crystallization." American Sociological Review 21:458-46 1966. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1994. "Societal Taxonomies: Mapping the Social Universe." Annual Review of Sociology 20:1-2 Lenski, G., and J. Lenski. 1970. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. New York: McG Hill. Lenski, G., J. Lenski, and P. Nolan. 1991. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. New Y McGraw Hill. Richardson, L. 1988. "The Collective Story: Postmodernism and the Writing of Sociology." Sociological Focus 21:199-207. Rosenau, P. 1992. Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton Princeton University Press. Seidman, S., and D. Wagner, eds. 1992. Postmodernism and General Social Theory. Cambridge, M Blackwell. Smith, D. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University. . 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Northeastern University. . 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Tilly, C. 1999. "Durable Inequality." Pp. 15-33 in A Nation Divided: Diversity, Inequality, and Commun American Society, edited by P. Moen, D. Dempster-McClain, and H. Walker. Ithaca, NY: Co University Press. Turner, J. 1984. Societal Stratification: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia. Wing, A. K, ed. 1997. Critical Race Feminism: A Reader' New York: New York University Press. This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 20:20:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello,... Here is the complete task.... I followed the directions appropriately..... :)

1
Running Head: SOCIOLOGY: ESSENTIAL IDEAS, CONCEPTS AND INSIGHTS
Sociology: Essential Ideas, Concepts and Insights

Name:

Institution:

2

SOCIOLOGY: ESSENTIAL IDEAS, CONCEPTS AND INSIGHTS
Sociology: Essential Ideas, Concepts and Insights
Reading the article brings to one’s attention various ideas, concepts and insights into the
aspects of modernism and post modernism. To begin with, the various concepts of equality and
ineq...


Anonymous
Nice! Really impressed with the quality.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags