1. Could be. I consider "teaching" a practice based on the best
science of learning.
I did lecture at one time.. it was fun being an entertainer. However, I
too found that there was little discussion. there wasn't time.
Perhaps more important is the teacher/preacher trap. It does not work
to tell people what kind of life is realy
worth living. We use materials that are untested.... and there is
seldom ant mention of feral learning.... feral learning
is much more powerful than the lecture or sermon.
My work with programing lead me to beta testing... this will give at
least a hint at what is learned. I was assigned Amazing Grace
for an Urban class... I thought it strange. But it is a popular
reading. I found that white students loved it while black students
found it offensive...it was not required reading and not required for
assignments I used Sim City..
2. Two comments on the list the doom and gloom causation and the
students making personal comments. I don't have the original at hand
but the person who posted it picked up on something. They communicated
with good reason a level of discomfort. The poster
indicated that they made an effort to relate the comments to
sociology... the Internet does remove boundaries regarding self
disclosure.
The doom gloom thing is also a problem.. In some cases we want to shock
students. One faculty member said it was his duty to
drag students (he taught in a conservative school) kicking and
screaming into the 21st century. While these statements can be
dismissed as elitist... they are damaging to sociology. They are
whether we intend it or not Public sociology.
3. As for perspectives. when painting is is useful to turn the canvas
sideways and upside down...so you can see the same thing
differently. We do the same thing with calculus...... as a
photographer I use different lenses. our brains are
multi-threaded--or
multi perspective organic rather than mechanical. I the major
difference may be that I am not committed and I have not drunk
the kool aid nor am I a creationist.. For example, I instruct students
not to use terms such as Durkheim believes or feels.
Instead, they should use terms such as claims, argues states...
I do not see us as talking across each other..... we make different
claims.... lets test them
4. When I tested out the phrase examined life on college age males and
females they did not know what it really meant....
one of them argued that she was sure that if you worked really hard you
would get a promotion and be unsuccessful ( I didn't push
her on what she meant by successful
:-) ) when I suggested that some of the hardest
workers were paid the least she replied
you have to work smart...so there you have it... we have to work
smart...... a few minutes earlier she told me that she would drive
30 minutes to an hour dance class.....even though she wanted very much
to learn Indian dancing.
Brian talked of exploration..... which is different from
teacher/preacher centered classroom that so often dominates the
sociology scene.
Del
Anne Eisenberg wrote:
It seems as though several of us are
talking across one another rather than with one another.
Del - it seems as though you are
taking some statements so literally that their original intent is
lost. Also - it appears that you come from a different perspective
than most of us - from an applied/practice perspective - is this
accurate?
Anne F. Eisenberg
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
SUNY-Geneseo
123D Sturges Hall
Geneseo, NY 14454
716-245-5447 (office)
716-245-5337 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, April 07, 2006 8:37 PM
Subject:
TEACHSOC: Re: need advice
Hi,
Lets not get sloppy. Did Schwalbe state "only the examined life
is really worth living?" What evidence does Schmalbe have to support
his suggestion of a
sociologically examined life. Has it ever been tested or is there
agreement on what a sociologically examined life wold be?
I objected to the only as well as the failure to encourage
thinking about possible bad news regarding mobility. The only way
social problems can be manifested is
thru individuals...even though the locus is the situation and not the
person(s) who happen to manifest them.
Why would you seek out structural foundations? What will you do when
you find them? In my practice I find it much more valuable to find
solutions.
Your description of science is backwards most post classical science
including Durkheim are anti entropic . Also you claim that biologists
are trying to
extend life beyond its natural conclusion... who knows what its natural
conclusion is.... do you?
I asked the list earlier this year for examples of sociological
breakthroughs only one of you was interested. And his suggestion was
ignored. What have
your students done that has made a measurable difference in the
community they served?
I do not quarrel with your beliefs. You and I can have very different
beliefs as to what is humane and better. That is of course where
religion and moral
systems depart. I do not consider it appropriate for me or you or
Schwalbe to decide what is good for others.. When did we find out what
people want
any way...I guess that will eliminate the need for elections.
Del
Robert Hironimus-Wendt wrote:
Actually Del, I disagree.
Schwalbe suggested in his book that the sociologically examined life is one
worth living, meaning that we need to teach our students and ourselves to
seek out structural foundations for social problems, as well as
environmental foundations for the problems we experience personally. I think
he is correct, as is Erin.
As to the "puritan" inference, I do not see it. If society is to change in a
predictable and humane way, guided social action is required. I do not
believe society operates "sui generis," nor do I subscribe to
"laissez-faire" doctrines. Hence, I attempt to show my students (through
service learning) (a) how they can, and (b) that they can, make a difference
in the well-being of the communities in which they live. That is, they can
use sociological knowledge to perform social actions that work toward more
humane communities.
At a more theoretical level, I think it is wrong to continually teach our
students that sociology is a science, and that an essential and defining
characteristic of any science is the absence of agenda/ideology. All
scientists pursue socially relevant agendas. Biologists seek to improve the
environment, and extend life beyond its natural conclusion. Chemists do the
same, and to make life more comfortable. All sciences have a potential to
effect good or bad. To deny this seems naïve to me.
The denial of morality claims in sociology is (to me) an attempt to conserve
the "status quo" of our discipline, as it existed in a limited time frame
(circa 1940-1960), in a specific space (the ivory tower type institutions in
the United States, which were never the majority). These American
sociologists (who were White Anglo men from the upper middle classes) wanted
to prove that sociology could resemble the mechanistic sciences of the
natural world - in other words, sociology could be a science of society
without reference to humanistic concerns. While that was certainly possible,
and was certainly the paradigm de jure, we have moved beyond that model as a
discipline. I know of few sociologists who wish to pursue that model today.
Most sociologists today see a socially relevant purpose to our pursuits, and
in the final analysis, a paradigm shift has occurred. Sociology today is not
the functionalism of the 1950s - just ask the neo-functionalists....
In sum, I think Erin is right to teach her students that they can make their
immediate social environments healthier, and that they should use sociology
to do so. The science of society has already taught us how to determine what
people want, and how to determine the most humanistic and efficient means
for achieving these collective desires.
To gather this knowledge and then NOT do use it for the collective good
would not make our discipline an a-moral discipline: it would make us an
im-moral discipline.
Peace to all,
Robert
Robert J. Hironimus-Wendt, Ph.D.
Sociology and Anthropology
Western Illinois University
1 University Circle
Macomb, IL 61455-1390
phone: (309) 298-1081
fax: (309) 298-1857
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It doesn't matter how strong your opinions are. If
you don't use your power for positive change, you
are indeed part of the problem, helping to keep
things the way they are." -Coretta Scott King
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
