Connell discusses how classical theory was made up because we wanted one. The foundation was given by people, and those people are Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. These theorists were given their position through canonization, just like in religion a saint is a saint through canonization. Even though there were many theorists, these three were chosen due to their work and their popularity. Connell states that this is wrong because the limiting is narrow there were many theorists and only these were chosen, a lot of theory is not known from the other theorists. She also says that Marx is not really necessary to study certain studies. Theory is not fully developed due to the fact that some of it is not known. Some of these theorists say that there needs to be equality yet; they are not doing that because other theorists did not get a chance to present their work due to the fact that they were not well known so they were consider lower than these theorists. Therefore, they did not get the same chance as others.
Sprague agrees with the idea of there is a hierarchy of the social. Sprague states that social theory is founded by whites and that social theory is only from the middle class perspective. Sprague says that there are three problems there is hierarchy of the social, poor analytical categories, and social theory is misguided. When social theory is written by these theorists they are described as an encyclopedia with missing pages, due to the fact the audience is exposed only to certain people. This is a problem because they are ranked socially. She states that there is hierarchy of the social when there is privilege attention to public. For example, they study the outside of the home because men were taught to go out to work. And not the inside where women are supposed to be working, Sprague says that this is an issue due to the fact that the puzzle is incomplete when we can see only one side of it. Sprague then invites us to the following solutions; connection we must connect the studies among social theorists, engage, and integrate diverse standpoint, there should be Praxis, meaning the merging of theory to action. I agree with her because it is not just about men and their view they must incorporate women in the picture, because it is through women that they were able to be born. There is a hierarchy because these are all White men, in society not all men are White there is diversity. And it is not just about wealthy men. Where are the low income men? These theorists cannot talk from a white perspective to speak about a Latino men, white men will never understand them unless they are observing them in their community. This is then why this theory is vague.
Chafetz work then is written in 1997, and she concentrates on gender and standpoint theory. She mentions that gender must be the focus of this theory, gender is problematic, and it should not essentialzed, it must challenge gender when it disadvantages women. Chafetz then goes on about the standpoint theory; standpoint epistemology is what we know by who we know in our life point. Chafetz states that situated knowledge is a process; it begins with the knower, then the known, and ends with process of knowing. Many sociologists identify as knowers. Knowledge is socially constructed. Chafetz brings up a good argument about how women should not be brought lower than men, women have their own work themselves that men often hide and it should not be this way. I agree with how knowledge is socially constructed in order for me to be educated from elementary to college I was taught the knowledge of various topics to form me the student I am today. Theory must diversify sociology to incorporate more stories, so that others can get to know about this theory at the end of the newest trends.