So what should I be reading?!

[synthla]

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.

Very logical assumption; the real story is pretty obscure and not that interesting - I was trying to think of a user name years ago when I was in NYC (for some other random purpose) and happened to be going through a personal revival of synth(esizer)-heavy music from the 1980s, so I used synthnyc. When I moved to LA, I switched the suffix.

[synthla]

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

Don't worry, I'm white, middle class and male. But you sociology types seem fun. Glad you're all applying to Indiana.

[misterpat]

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

I majored in both history and sociology. I researched both types of schools this year, unsure of what I wanted to do. I post in this section since I figured I know about as much as many prospective Sociology applicants (and I may be one next year if I get rejected from History programs). I ended up picking History, because I think I'll enjoy primary source research more for a career. But I want to integrate some ideas from sociology into my research.

And I also do read a lot.

[misterpat]

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

Sub-sub-topic: Did you read Guyland? If yes, thoughts?

[misterpat]

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?

This may defy what you gender studies folk think usually happens, but I don't really bring considerations of gender into my online interactions until I get a few hints one way or the other. (Here's an opening for a really lame pun about e-quality)

A few possibly interesting exceptions: I assumed that both synthla and tritone were male, until I found out tritone studied gender and thereupon assumed she was female. And I've always operated under the assumption that the mods (rising_star and bgk, at least) were both men, though I have no basis for this assumption. Maybe it's some subconscious assocation of authority with masculinity. (For the record: I took that psychology test Harvard does to test your subconscious gender stereotypes, and scored "No gender stereotypes." So don't be too quick to label me a chauvinist pig for that last remark, even if both mods turn out to be female.)

[migrationdude]

Completely off-topic, but it's quite funny - I am also double-majoring in History and Sociology, but picked the latter because I figured out I liked working with current issues more, and because getting good data is slightly easier in soci.

[misterpat]

Completely off-topic, but it's quite funny - I am also double-majoring in History and Sociology, but picked the latter because I figured out I liked working with current issues more, and because getting good data is slightly easier in soci.

Looks like you have excellent taste in disciplines. Did you minor in Philosophy as well? I did... If we also have that in common, it would be a bit eerie.

And congrats on your acceptances. Some impressive schools you've got listed there.

[migrationdude]

Haha, thanks. I didn't really minor in Philosophy (more like Econ and German), so at least the coincidence doesn't go that far. Most of my research work experience is tied to history though -- I've been working with a history professor for the past four years now.

[Tritonetelephone]

I assumed that both synthla and tritone were male, until I found out tritone studied gender and thereupon assumed she was female.

I'm specializing in masculinity - actually don't care much for "women's studies." Would that have changed your gender assumption?

[misterpat]

I'm specializing in masculinity - actually don't care much for "women's studies." Would that have changed your gender assumption?

Maybe it would have made it less obvious you were female, but I probably still would have assumed the same. That's pretty cool, though. I've read some awesome articles on masculinity. Two personal favorites are Michael Grazian's "The Girl Hunt" and Lance Strate's "Beer Commercials: A Manual on Masculinity."

[ewurgler]

I'm specializing in masculinity - actually don't care much for "women's studies." Would that have changed your gender assumption?

Jeez--ripping on women's studies!!! I hate it now too. You can really OD on feminist theory, and I have over and over again.

[Tritonetelephone]

I'll check them out. Thanks!

[slothy]

Sounds like my suggestions didn't go over very well. Let me defend myself: I was thinking of my own work - work and labor with a policy focus - when I made the suggestion that the OP should be reading quality news sources, but I completely understand why that would be a lower priority for a lot of other sociologists-in-training, and I agree that it's advisable to at a minimum be browsing the big journals. In fact, I really do agree with the comment that it probably would be quite bad for a sex/gender person to pay too much attention to some popular press sources. I also realize in hindsight that the New York Times was probably not the best newspaper to mention on this board given some of the things that have been said here about one of its star columnists. I guess my failure to think of sociologists who might have different interests than myself is just an example of how fractured our discipline can be. I was also in the mindset that I feel like I need a little break myself from intensely scholarly stuff before starting the Ph.D., not that they wouldn't be useful to someone without a soc major.

I was expecting that my comment about Marx/Durkheim/Weber would stir up some discussion. I would be truly surprised to see a field exam that drew extensively from them (that's not explicitly in social theory), and I made my comment fully cognizant that the OP will probably have to take some theory course along the line where he or she will get a healthy dose of them. I don't feel like it's necessary to be reading from them prior to that course, although I respect differences of opinion on that. Personally, I was happy to rely on Wikipedia/Cliff's Notes to get my A in theory, but I realize that many people out there enjoy reading directly from the source. (Somehow I have a terrible feeling that some may not respond well to that comment, but I truly feel that I'm primarily here for the applications, as important as it is to have people out there who understand the underlying theories.)

As for the other theme of this thread, I've been assuming with a couple exceptions that most of the posters here are male like myself. The thought of a poll did actually cross my mind a couple weeks ago though. Now my schema of you all is shattered...

[hip2btriangle]

ok, i LOVE that this post has devolved/evolved into what it has. this is a part of why i want to go to grad school! to meet huge dorks that love talking about this stuff when 90% of the world couldn't give a damn. i suggest we all hang out one day at an ASA conference and whip up some rad soc geek conversations!!

and yes, i've read guyland, and i'll follow up eventually with how i feel about it (mixed). note that i'm obsessed with kimmel's work -- he was the reason i've pursued gender/masculinity/sexuality studies as much as i have. there's just something decidedly white-ish about it that i can't quite articulate yet...

thanks again for all the reading suggestions here!

[misterpat]

and yes, i've read guyland, and i'll follow up eventually with how i feel about it (mixed). note that i'm obsessed with kimmel's work -- he was the reason i've pursued gender/masculinity/sexuality studies as much as i have. there's just something decidedly white-ish about it that i can't quite articulate yet...

I thought Guyland had its moments, but my expectations were high and I was let down. Kimmel seems to always take what was a good point one step too far. He'll have made a reasonable observation and then tack a dubious claim or generalization on the end of it.

[Tritonetelephone]

ok, i LOVE that this post has devolved/evolved into what it has. this is a part of why i want to go to grad school! to meet huge dorks that love talking about this stuff when 90% of the world couldn't give a damn. i suggest we all hang out one day at an ASA conference and whip up some rad soc geek conversations!!

and yes, i've read guyland, and i'll follow up eventually with how i feel about it (mixed). note that i'm obsessed with kimmel's work -- he was the reason i've pursued gender/masculinity/sexuality studies as much as i have. there's just something decidedly white-ish about it that i can't quite articulate yet...

thanks again for all the reading suggestions here!

100% agree with loving this thread!!

Also, I'm a big Kimmel fan as well! I saw him give a guest lecture a couple years ago, it was awesome. He's extraordinarily nice, too - I was a little starstruck, emailing with him last year about SBU. They better get back to me with better news this time!!

[misterpat]

I was hesitant to start a thread about this, but I figure I'll tack it on here, since this was at one point a discussion of theory.

Anyone familiar with theorist Donald Black from UVA? And his "pure sociology"?

"Dreams of Pure Sociology" has to be the most pretentious thing I've ever read, except maybe Derrida.

[Tritonetelephone]

I guess my failure to think of sociologists who might have different interests than myself is just an example of how fractured our discipline can be. I was also in the mindset that I feel like I need a little break myself from intensely scholarly stuff before starting the Ph.D., not that they wouldn't be useful to someone without a soc major.

That's a very good point, slothy! You say 'fractured,' but one thing I love about sociology is how BROAD it is!

And I can definitely relate to the need to break from the scholarly stuff from time to time. I don't think any of us want to become "armchair theorists."

I haven't heard of "Pure Sociology," misterpat, but I'm guessing it fits into that category?

[misterpat]

I don't think any of us want to become "armchair theorists."

I haven't heard of "Pure Sociology," misterpat, but I'm guessing it fits into that category?

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition (looks like someone paraphrased what Black said in an effort not to quote him) [italics are mine]:

"This approach attempts to explain social life (the sociological behavior of organizations, groups, relationships, and interpersonal facts such as murder and art) solely with reference to variable aspects of social structure, such as the distribution of resources or degree of past interaction among participants, rather than to anything remotely psychological, such as wants, needs, beliefs, desire, preferences, meanings, intentions, hopes, choices, or anything else remotely individual. Pure sociology is thus free from psychology, as well as teleology - and even people, as such.

"It is said above that Black developed (rather than invented) this approach because it arguably extends from earlier sociological work, ranging from Durkheim's emphasis on social explanations for individual behavior to later work in the variation of police (and other legal) behavior. While pre-Blackian sociology typically does retain and entail elements of psychology and teleology, so that Black's epistemological strategy is unique, it may also be understood as a radical extension of sociology rather than something entirely new."

It's definitely grand theory. I read one article by him on "The Social Geometry of Terrorism." He basically invented a bunch of jargon, saying that terrorism occurs when social geometry is distant, but physical geometry is close. (Translation: When two cultures are different, but in the same physical proximity with one another.) The terminology just seems unnecessary to me, and I don't know if we've really learned anything. He's kind of fun to read, since he is eccentric and rather sure of himself. It's also somewhat comically pretentious, since he claims only he and his disciples are capable of conducting pure sociology.

And just for a giggle, take a look at his picture from UVA faculty page:

I know it's immature, but I just think bow-ties are funny.

[doctoraldude]

i know it might be a case of 'little learning' being a dangerous thing, but it seems to me that Black has just repainted theories of emergence with blinkers on :?