Carlos Fragoso
Social Theory Critique
Through the perspective of an elite group of men social theory began to flourish and the historical foundation of an important sociological area of study was set. Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are noted to be the canon of the field, whose expertise and intellect drove the discipline into a more respected and important status. Social theory then became a way of looking at society; however, it was conducted from a standpoint not of the persons or cultures being analyzed. Having a social status drastically different than those in their study caused for some reevaluation by scholars that wished to take a more inclusive standpoint. Critiquing social theory comes with the need to develop a better understanding of what and who is being analyzed. Janet Chafetz precisely deconstructs the ideas that have centered the canon of sociology and introduces ways in which the outdated framework around social theory can be reshaped.
As Chafetz proposed, it is important to study, review, and build theories on the basis of experiencing and gathering as many points of views as possible from those you are analyzing. Through this mindset one can better understand the past and current framing of social theory. The canons were of their time, contextually analyzing the world and social phenomena from a privileged, White, male, upper class perspective. There was no direct concern for other factors that may contribute to the studies, such as gender, race, status, location, etc. Feminist theory and its various components have offered perspectives that are more inclusive and in relation to those being studied. Looking into Weber’s analysis of class, status, and party is very much reflective of why it is important to deconstruct and decenter the white, privileged perspective. In regards to obtaining a certain status, it is very easy to note the lifestyle choices being made that affect this consumption position in life. As Weber discussed, to “fit in” one must “look” the part; pretty easy to say coming from an individual whose race does not affect this aspect, or whose gender does not place them beneath another. Other theories of his, along with his cohorts, tend to reflect this narrow perspective.
In what ways can we better include other aspects, such as race, class, and gender without fully utilizing the framework of past social theorists as a base for thinking? Chafetz reminds us of the intersection that these three forms constitute and without placing them into a hierarchy we analyze the inner workings of this oppression. Instead of one being more oppressive than the other, we must look at how these aspects relate and affect one another and the individual/society. With feminists on a continuous critiquing spree of theories given from canons alike, there has been much more attention given to the complexity of social theory. The framing of older, White, privileged men has called for the relationship between history and policy. As we see within our own borders, men continuously outnumber women in the corporate world; lead our country through legislation and presidency, and rate of income, to name a few. Thus, macro-level issues must not overtake and undermine the need for micro-level concerns.
To become more inclusive and adapt to the ever-changing social phenomena it is crucial to view feminist theory as a way to become more systematic and aware of the layers that affect an individual in relation to society. Straying from dichotomous thinking is of importance when critiquing social theory. The framework in which the canons have constructed is very much so in this white and black thinking, where the need for the gray area is not mentioned nor referred to. Essentialism is something Chafetz finds to be an issue among the discipline, in that instances are present because it is nature or intrinsic characteristics. Within the categories of race, gender, and class there are even more levels of oppression, as Chafetz pointed out there being “within-gender” differences. Take the struggles of minority women; an African American woman does not experience the same social phenomena as a Latina, due to racial profiling, access to resources, and social status all contributing to different outcomes. An analysis of how some aspects are the same for certain individuals sheds light to the importance that it is not always generalizable. Instead of blindly following the perspective established by those in privileged positions, it is worthy to incorporate feminist theories into our thinking. By deconstructing these notions and establishing a new framework upon the historical one will give way to better understand social phenomena.
Social Theory Critique
Through the perspective of an elite group of men social theory began to flourish and the historical foundation of an important sociological area of study was set. Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are noted to be the canon of the field, whose expertise and intellect drove the discipline into a more respected and important status. Social theory then became a way of looking at society; however, it was conducted from a standpoint not of the persons or cultures being analyzed. Having a social status drastically different than those in their study caused for some reevaluation by scholars that wished to take a more inclusive standpoint. Critiquing social theory comes with the need to develop a better understanding of what and who is being analyzed. Janet Chafetz precisely deconstructs the ideas that have centered the canon of sociology and introduces ways in which the outdated framework around social theory can be reshaped.
As Chafetz proposed, it is important to study, review, and build theories on the basis of experiencing and gathering as many points of views as possible from those you are analyzing. Through this mindset one can better understand the past and current framing of social theory. The canons were of their time, contextually analyzing the world and social phenomena from a privileged, White, male, upper class perspective. There was no direct concern for other factors that may contribute to the studies, such as gender, race, status, location, etc. Feminist theory and its various components have offered perspectives that are more inclusive and in relation to those being studied. Looking into Weber’s analysis of class, status, and party is very much reflective of why it is important to deconstruct and decenter the white, privileged perspective. In regards to obtaining a certain status, it is very easy to note the lifestyle choices being made that affect this consumption position in life. As Weber discussed, to “fit in” one must “look” the part; pretty easy to say coming from an individual whose race does not affect this aspect, or whose gender does not place them beneath another. Other theories of his, along with his cohorts, tend to reflect this narrow perspective.
In what ways can we better include other aspects, such as race, class, and gender without fully utilizing the framework of past social theorists as a base for thinking? Chafetz reminds us of the intersection that these three forms constitute and without placing them into a hierarchy we analyze the inner workings of this oppression. Instead of one being more oppressive than the other, we must look at how these aspects relate and affect one another and the individual/society. With feminists on a continuous critiquing spree of theories given from canons alike, there has been much more attention given to the complexity of social theory. The framing of older, White, privileged men has called for the relationship between history and policy. As we see within our own borders, men continuously outnumber women in the corporate world; lead our country through legislation and presidency, and rate of income, to name a few. Thus, macro-level issues must not overtake and undermine the need for micro-level concerns.
To become more inclusive and adapt to the ever-changing social phenomena it is crucial to view feminist theory as a way to become more systematic and aware of the layers that affect an individual in relation to society. Straying from dichotomous thinking is of importance when critiquing social theory. The framework in which the canons have constructed is very much so in this white and black thinking, where the need for the gray area is not mentioned nor referred to. Essentialism is something Chafetz finds to be an issue among the discipline, in that instances are present because it is nature or intrinsic characteristics. Within the categories of race, gender, and class there are even more levels of oppression, as Chafetz pointed out there being “within-gender” differences. Take the struggles of minority women; an African American woman does not experience the same social phenomena as a Latina, due to racial profiling, access to resources, and social status all contributing to different outcomes. An analysis of how some aspects are the same for certain individuals sheds light to the importance that it is not always generalizable. Instead of blindly following the perspective established by those in privileged positions, it is worthy to incorporate feminist theories into our thinking. By deconstructing these notions and establishing a new framework upon the historical one will give way to better understand social phenomena.