So what should I be reading?!

[hip2btriangle]

Okay, so I'm in somewhere. I thought the anxiety was over, but surprise surprise -- it's only beginning!

I don't have a strong background in sociology, and while I've read theory here and there (yes, yes, Bordieu), can anyone actually list texts that I should brush up on before starting a PhD program? I've got a basics on sociological research book from Babbie, but i need more on the theory side of things.

Help!

[nyghtfalls]

the social theory reader by charles lemert is fantastic! it pretty much has any to all the readings you would need to jump start your knowledge of social theory. Big names in sociology include, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Goffman, George Herbert Mead (who taught Goffman), Bourdieu, Cooley and many more. Remember that sociologists pull from many different fields/studies (i.e. economics, education, anthropology, psychology, women's studies, etc) so you may have to branch out to understand the different theories in certain areas of Soc. If you get the reader though (3rd edition) you should be pretty set. the official title of it is: Social Theory: The multicultural and classic readings by Charles Lemert. Good luck, and welcome to the field! :-)

[international]

he social theory reader by charles lemert is fantastic!

i agree with the above, great intro book, but i also recommend browsing important journals in the field (ASR, AJS, and others more specific to your field) in order to get a sense of what is going on in the discipline now

[slothy]

I think there's an argument to be made that Marx/Durkheim/Weber aren't really that important for being fluent in sociology. None of them self-identified as sociologists; at some point in the 60's-70's American sociologists discovered them and claimed their work for the domain of soc (and somehow decided to throw out all the theory stuff they were teaching before to focus pretty much exclusively on them) but they are really interdisciplinary social theorists who far from dominate the field. You should have an idea of their basic tenets (i.e., Marx: class conflict is responsible for everything), but it's relatively uncommon to see a journal article that mentions those classic theorists more than just in passing. IMHO, reviewing a stats textbook (Babbie would be fine, although I might supplement it with a more mainstream "Dummies"-esque guide) would probably be far more important for soc success than reviewing classic theorists.

I also think reading the NY Times/Economist/ other current-affairs publications (if you don't already) might help you start thinking about research topics down the road.

[samoth]

Congratulations, first of all!

Blackwell have a reader called "Classical Sociological Theory" which includes essential texts not only by the "fathers" but other important writers such as Mannheim, Du Bois, Marcuse and such (not to mention Parsons, of course - many understand the larger part of sociological writing from the 60s on as being directed against him so it's a good idea to be familiar with him). As for more recent writers, again from Blackwell - "Contemporary Sociological Theory" (if I remember correctly) - Bourdieu, Foucault, Baudrillard and such.

Good luck!

[ewurgler]

I strongly disagree with the argument that Weber, Durkhiem and Marx won't be a good starting point for reading. "classic sociological theory" courses have them all, and many core principles come from them. They WILL be covered in any soc program you go to. If you are more interested in quant and methodology, read the book slothy mentioned as well. But if you have no orientation of marx, weber and durkhiem, you will be lost in the theory courses.

As an intro....Try Max Weber "economy and society" volume one, part 1 ch 1 and 2, part 2 ch 1. Or, grab those "selected writings" books by cambridge. For any sociologist, you will HAVE to be familiar with all three.

Of course they didn't self-identify---sociology was hardly a discipline in their time.

[hardboiledegg]

I think there's an argument to be made that Marx/Durkheim/Weber aren't really that important for being fluent in sociology. None of them self-identified as sociologists; at some point in the 60's-70's American sociologists discovered them and claimed their work for the domain of soc (and somehow decided to throw out all the theory stuff they were teaching before to focus pretty much exclusively on them) but they are really interdisciplinary social theorists who far from dominate the field. You should have an idea of their basic tenets (i.e., Marx: class conflict is responsible for everything), but it's relatively uncommon to see a journal article that mentions those classic theorists more than just in passing. IMHO, reviewing a stats textbook (Babbie would be fine, although I might supplement it with a more mainstream "Dummies"-esque guide) would probably be far more important for soc success than reviewing classic theorists.

I also think reading the NY Times/Economist/ other current-affairs publications (if you don't already) might help you start thinking about research topics down the road.

Are you joking? Any classical sociological theory course surveys Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, sometimes exclusively. These are the underpinnings of our entire field!! Not to mention, most (if not all) doctoral programs require strong theoretical training in your coursework. You would be remiss to NOT read these three social theorists.

To the original poster: I would recommend The Marx Engles Reader (Tucker), From Max Weber (Mills), and Durkheim (Nisbet), that is, if you want to cover classical sociological theory.

Contemporary theory is kind of up to you! -- The subfields have their own theoretical bases, but I would highly recommend what was posted by others.

Babbie is a great start for methods, but it is really up to you, again.

[misterpat]

I strongly disagree with the argument that Weber, Durkhiem and Marx won't be a good starting point for reading. "classic sociological theory" courses have them all, and many core principles come from them. They WILL be covered in any soc program you go to. If you are more interested in quant and methodology, read the book slothy mentioned as well. But if you have no orientation of marx, weber and durkhiem, you will be lost in the theory courses.

As an intro....Try Max Weber "economy and society" volume one, part 1 ch 1 and 2, part 2 ch 1. Or, grab those "selected writings" books by cambridge. For any sociologist, you will HAVE to be familiar with all three.

Of course they didn't self-identify---sociology was hardly a discipline in their time.

I agree. You're going to run into sociologists who build on the ideas of Weber and Durkheim and Marx, even if they aren't teaching you them specifically(I.E. When Ritzer talks about McDonaldization being the new Iron Cage, you'll probably grip his thoughts better if you've read Weber's piece on Bureaucracy and Formal/Instrumental Rationality.) You'll read all those guys in your theory course, so it might not be that essential to read it beforehand.

The theory you want to read depends on your primary focus. If you're going for political soc, you might want to check out Jurgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action.

If you're going for micro-sociology, check out Erving Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everday Life.

If you want to get acquainted with Marx, I recommend checking out the Marx book from the "How to Read" series. I've read 5 books in this series; they're kind of neat. They are all about 100-120 pages, and they use like 500 word excerpts from key texts, and have an expert explain them. So, you'll have like, "Marx's greatest hits" and a philosopher specializing in Marx explaining what he's talking about. Great way to get acquainted with a major figure. http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Marx-Peter-Osborne/dp/0393328783

[ewurgler]

misterpat: are you a secret sociologist hiding as a historian? Or do you just read a lot?

[Tritonetelephone]

I think there's an argument to be made that Marx/Durkheim/Weber aren't really that important for being fluent in sociology.

I think I see what you're trying to say, but I would not give this advice to someone who doesn't already have a bachelor's in Sociology. You need to learn to add before you can multiply. Classical theory WILL be discussed in grad school and you WILL be expected to know these three forwards and backwards at some point. Can you imagine passing a qualifying exam for theory without knowing much about Marx, Durkheim, or Weber? I wouldn't want to attend a graduate program where that would be possible.

I also think reading the NY Times/Economist/ other current-affairs publications (if you don't already) might help you start thinking about research topics down the road.

With all due respect to slothy, I would also strongly advise against this. There is a big difference between sociology and journalism, which one of my schools (don't remember which one) found important enough to specifically state on their website. Keep up with your current events, yes, but I would NOT use this information as a model for future research. Journals, journals, journals!!

Of course they didn't self-identify---sociology was hardly a discipline in their time.

That's true, too. I was just reading an article by Bourdieu about this (in the original French I might add :wink:. /bragging). I'll post it if I can find it.

[ewurgler]

That's true. I was just reading an article by Bourdieu about this (in the original French I might add :wink:. /bragging)

God, I am so jealous!!! But, sure, you can read bourdieu in french, but what about Foucault

[hip2btriangle]

Tritonetelephone wrote:

ewurgler wrote:Of course they didn't self-identify---sociology was hardly a discipline in their time.

That's true. I was just reading an article by Bourdieu about this (in the original French I might add :wink:. /bragging)

God, I am so jealous!!! But, sure, you can read bourdieu in french, but what about Foucault

pleeeeeease, if tritonetelephone is the gender/sexuality scholar ze claims ze is, then foucault will most certainly be in zir library ;]

[Tritonetelephone]

pleeeeeease, if tritonetelephone is the gender/sexuality scholar ze claims ze is, then foucault will most certainly be in zir library ;]

Never underestimate the crappiness of my UG university! My theory teacher was a culture expert (there aren't really any gender experts here) so we talked about Charlotte Perkins Gilman but that's about it for sex/gender. Not too familiar with Foucault yet - thanks for the idea though! That will give me something to do while I'm waiting.

That's the weird thing about Bourdieu, though... the English articles I've read of his are VERY difficult to read. But in French, he's crystal clear. I'm not even fluent and I get it.

[hip2btriangle]

definitely plow through parts of foucault's history of sexuality. good stuff!

[nsk]

I took slothy's statement about Marx/Weber/Durkheim to mean that once you move on to a specific sub-discipline of sociology (beyond comps) there is an "argument" to be made about how much their insights are used/applied in that sub-field,

For the original poster, yes you do want to read the original works, but I would advise that you start with a broad overview (a grad. level reader) to help get oriented better. even if you do not have any background in sociology, it is possible to catch up with the readings during your first year. Of course, you will be working harder, but in my mind it is easier to synthesize the readings once you have the broader perspective (that you acquire from a reader).

[ewurgler]

For sure history of sexuality, and I'd do discipline and punish as well....you really can never get away from disciplinary power in gender studies. BTW--does anyone else frequently say "crime and punishment" on accident, and people look at you like you are idiot?

Oh, and if you like political theory/feminist perspective: CAROLE PATEMAN!!! I have a intellectual crush on her. Wendy brown too.

Also, I was just re-reading butler's "melancholy gender" article...really good.

I did gender studies as an undergrad and I never read charlotte perkins gilman. But, i do hate pre-1950s stuff (sorry wollstonecraft!).

[ewurgler]

I also think reading the NY Times/Economist/ other current-affairs publications (if you don't already) might help you start thinking about research topics down the road.

With all due respect to slothy, I would also strongly advise against this. There is a big difference between sociology and journalism, which one of my schools (don't remember which one) found important enough to specifically state on their website. Keep up with your current events, yes, but I would NOT use this information as a model for future research. Journals, journals, journals!!

TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY AGREE!!!! hip's focus is gender and sexuality, and if she/he took her/his cues from popular publications, she would be researching shit that has been around in academia for YEARS. Maybe I am just really biased and favor qualitative/theory to quantitative and really have no idea what kinds of stuff makes for interesting stats research.

Side note: I'm not sure why, but I find myself assuming everyone on this forum is female--no matter the discipline (excpet for misterpat). Anyone else have similar strange assumptions?

[Tritonetelephone]

I'm pretty well trained to not make any assumptions - I usually don't assign a gender unless they have a photo or gendered username. The big exception is that I catch myself thinking of all the CS/EE people as male - my excuse is that my bf is in that discipline, so I'm not being sexist

I'm a female, BTW hip2btriangle. But props on the "ze" drop! I've heard that once or twice, but only among the TG community. I think a lot of academics are now using "hu" (short for human).

[synthla]

Side note: I'm not sure why, but I find myself assuming everyone on this forum is female--no matter the discipline (excpet for misterpat). Anyone else have similar strange assumptions?

It had occurred to me that assumptions of gender in the context of online forums might be an interesting study in and of itself. But I agree, and I would be interested to do a poll and see what the breakdown is... I wonder whether there would be much of a difference if it was broken down by field, or whether the online forum context attracts a more uniform ratio of genders than one would find in different departments if taken individually and outside the online forum context.

[ewurgler]

haha! Someone make a poll!!! and ask them to put their discipline!

I am majorly sick of stuff like that myself, but that would make for a very interesting project!!!

[Tritonetelephone]

It had occurred to me that assumptions of gender in the context of online forums might be an interesting study in and of itself.

I call dibs!! Seriously, I think I remember something in Michael Kimmel's work about dimensions of privilege commonly being assumed when information is not available: male, white, upper/middle class, heterosexual, Christian, etc. And characteristics that deviate from any of these tend to dominate one's identity. Maybe I'm mixing a couple of different things/authors... it's been a while. But that's another big research interest for me: privilege and identity.

Apologies to the OP for going so off-topic. These are good convos to be had, though

[waitinginohio]

dimensions of privilege commonly being assumed when information is not available: male, white, upper/middle class, heterosexual, Christian, etc.

That's funny, because I tend to assume most of the people posting in the soc section are female, GLBTQ friendly if not GLBTQ themselves, and not (very) religious, though I must admit I've assumed white and middle class. Probably because this is the profile of most of the soc majors and soc profs at my school.

[synthla]

I call dibs!! Seriously, I think I remember something in Michael Kimmel's work about dimensions of privilege commonly being assumed when information is not available: male, white, upper/middle class, heterosexual, Christian, etc. And characteristics that deviate from any of these tend to dominate one's identity. Maybe I'm mixing a couple of different things/authors... it's been a while. But that's another big research interest for me: privilege and identity.

Apologies to the OP for going so off-topic. These are good convos to be had, though

That is interesting; obviously I'm not in sociology myself so what might be understood as basic knowledge to someone in the field is new to me. In the complete absence of concrete "tells," I find myself assuming that Gradcafe posters are female, and I'm not, which is thought provoking.

[Tritonetelephone]

LOL, I thought you were female because I was reading your name as Synthia (or Cynthia).

Maybe there is something to be said about assumptions in specific contexts deviating from what we typically think of as "privilege." Don't women dominate (for lack of a better word) men in academia? Do ya'll think that's why a lot of us seem to assume people on here are female? I also get a lot of assumptions that I myself am GLBTQ because of all the work I do, but I'm not.

[ewurgler]

LOL, I thought you were female because I was reading your name as Synthia (or Cynthia).

Maybe there is something to be said about assumptions in specific contexts deviating from what we typically think of as "privilege." Don't women dominate (for lack of a better word) men in academia? Do ya'll think that's why a lot of us seem to assume people on here are female? I also get a lot of assumptions that I myself am GLBTQ because of all the work I do, but I'm not.

Really? I thought LESBIAN from the second I laid eyes on your forum posts. Just kidding.

for the record: I am white, middle class, female. How boring.