What do you make of this cartoon? Is the current state of the world a product of human nature/greed... or something else?

This is where the nature vs nurture question gets macro: if we know people are largely products of nurture (socialisation) then it should follow that society is as well. Take the problem of unemployment. As a good student recently pointed out, "Some people actually dont want to work. 60 Minutes did a whole show on it." Of course this is true. Sociology does not presume to account for the desires of all people, but rather to understand how these desires stem from structural aspects of our micro, meso and macro worlds (the economy and legal framework) and the cultural aspects of our micro, meso and macro world (popular culture, art, academia and politics) Both the structural and the cultural are moulded by ideology - sometimes fast and sometimes slow, sometimes by the many, sometimes by the few.

 

"There is probably no period in human history when a sense of change, a challenge to all that seemed permanent, was not experienced – and largely as unwelcome disruption. Change may have been in the form of political upheaval – a move from despotic rule to democracy, for instance; or social instability – the relational shift in women’s and men’s roles with regards domestic responsibilities; or economic influence – the rise of global trade and international markets. Each, however, is also evidence of human creativity – our ability to live in new and different times."
Dr Wendy Maples (article)

 

 

There are a few theses we will examine in understanding continuity and change.

 

Karl Marx observed the increasing polarisation of society into two classes - the majority working class and the minority ruling class. He said because their interests (whetehr they knew it or not) were opposed, they would conflict until change took place. In fact, he said, just as capitalism was necessary to get beyond the unproductive and fairly useless fuedal stage, the working class would over throw the ruling class and demand fairness and democracy. This new system would be socialism/communism. (Lenin made a party to help the working class do this, Trotsky said there was no end point to revolution it had to be "permanent" and ongoing, then Stalin decided to make a bloc of communism that would have to protect itself from the capitalism west... nek minut... cold war, gulags... communism looks very bad to the west... then the communists themselves tear down the berlin wall and run joyfully to the capitalist west...

Francis Fukuyama theorised that the fall of the Soviet Union and thus communism/marxism as an ideology meant there was only one ideology left: capitalism. He said because there could be no alternative, 1989 was the "end of history". Society will change, but not radically. (Margaret Thatcher mean while was all like "See I told you! There's no such thing as society" - only individuals who must look after themselves (mwah hahahahah) 

The 1990's saw a wave of anticapitalist protest - sure communism had looks bad, but capitalism was 

Which do you think is true?

Have we reached the 'end of history' (Fukuyama) - so that there will be only slight changes ahead of us particularly in terms of power and political order?

Or,

'History is not finished; experiences seek and out and find... the words to declare themselves and pass themselves on... as resistance.' (Tiqqun)

 

Technology: Are we moving toards the "inhuman" (Lyotard) with our use of technology to do the tasks humans used to do? Computers and robots are predictable and controllable. Does this mean we will have less chance of challenging authority? (The workers are replaced by computers, "difference" (conflict - Lyotard) relaced by artificianl intelligance? Is society being democratised by the internet, and is there a need for regulation (Astra Taylor)? (read my article)

 

Lyotard's deconstruction (see Derrida) of the 'grandnarrative' of history Vs Marx's narrative of conflict between classes constituting history.

Should events in history be seen as discreet (separate) or connected? How do different societies conceptualise history and the future?

 

Would you rather be a cyborg or a Goddess?! Harraway said women can utilise technology to liberate themselves from the traditional marriage of women to their 'natural' essence and the domestic/micro realm of experience.

 

Recommended reading:

 

Chapter 6, Society & Culture (textbook) 2002, Howitt & Julian, Heinemann

 

Functionalism: p88-98, Introducing Sociology, 2004, Osborne & Loon, Icon Ltd

 

Conflict theory: p99-117, Introducing Sociology, 2004, Osborne & Loon, Icon Ltd

 

Feminsim: p118-122 Introducing Sociology, 2004, Osborne & Loon, Icon Ltd

 

Globalisation: and postmodernism: p123-128 Introducing Sociology, 2004, Osborne & Loon, Icon Ltd

 

Orientalism: p136-7, Introducing Critical Theory, 2001, Sim & Loon, Icon Ltd

 

The End of History? Francis Fukuyama http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm

 

Zizek predicts that "capitalism and democracy are destined to split up" in the future.

Do you agree?

Abstract:

'Philosopher Slavoj Žižek argues that our current brand of global capitalism is quickly outgrowing democracy and that a divorce between the two is inevitable. This leads to an array of social and geopolitical concerns regarding the public commons. These problems include but are not limited to ecology, biogenetics, finance, neo-apartheid, crisis management, intellectual property rights, and personal freedom. Žižek touches on all these topics and more in this epic delivery of political and social theory.' http://bigthink.com/videos/slavoj-zizek-on-capitalism-and-the-commons.

 

Notes: This is a useful though admittedly difficult source. Next term we will contrast functionalist and conflict views of systemic change -"the system" being: 

to conflict theorists: capitalism 
A now global system of competition for profit enabled by social and economic policy that prioritises the rights to private property and accumulation of wealth more than it values social and ecological wellbeing
to functionalists: liberal democracy
A now global system where institutions manage competition between corporations to raise capital that can be used for societies needs. Over time institutions have given more and more freedom to corporations to do this however they see fit. It's up to policy makers of the day to consult with "the people", institutions and corporations about how free or regulated corporations should be depending on the situation.

 

The debate:
Conflict theorists (who see capitalism as ruining society and the planet) and functionalist theorists (who see liberal democracy as imperfect but the best option) totally disagree about all the big issues Zizek talks about in the video posted above by Seda. He names Fukuyama as a key functionalist thinker. Fukuyama claimed in 1989 that the collapse of the soviet union meant the end of marxism and the triumph of capitalism. Fukuyama said we had entered "the end of history". Here Zizek refutes this, saying actually we have entered a new phase of capitalism where the functionalists will no longer be able to appease us with small tastes of democracy. 
Zizek is saying capitalism has become so freed by neoliberalism that new ideologies will emerge - a kind of postmodern psuedo-marxist technological collectivistic democracy.... Linking with Naomi Klein (conflict theorist) she says something similar in her new book "This Changes Everything" - essentially she's saying the same thing - the demise of the environment due to capitalism means people will demand alternatives. 

What do you think? Will the disasters of our time challenge the ideologies of society? (war, environmental degradation, species extinction, poverty, violence, alienation, inequality, exposure of government lies etc?)

 

Do you accept the current political paradigm? Russel Brand doesn't:
Stimulus: Russel Brand's optimism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYcn3PuTTk

 

(Right so I admit Brand is not an academic per se - but his ideas have been widely accessed and they are quite sociological, so in my opinion he is a significant thinker! I HEART YOU RUSTY!)
Brand's article in New Statesman:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

 

Mark Steels comedy radio show about sport and the economy (great intro to Marxist economics!)
http://www.marksteelinfo.com/audio/TheEconomy.mp3

 

David Harvey on Capitalism and crisis (Advanced)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

 

Capitalism features a small wealthy class ("the 1%") and a huge working class and poor ("the 99%") So why dont people tip the balance and take power through revolution? See Gramsci's theory of Hegemony on the concepts page under "power"

Consider EMPOWERMENT and CHANGE in the following clip: Afghan Skateboarding Girls:
http://vimeo.com/46337060
 

 

Evolutionary theory - a modern take on it - Richard Dawkins Meme theory
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/meme-theory-do-we-come-up-with-ideas-or-do-they-in-fact-control-us-7939077.html

Which three theories would you take to a desert island? http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/3-theories-to-take-to-a-desert-island/
 

 

Feminism as a conflict theory:

'The continuum of history is not a give; it's the chatter of the dominant ones over the silence of the dispossessed, the systempatic sequence of virile narratives; whetehr today, when History (the widow of the classical subject: the valiant male, the hero or the scholar, capable of making it and passing it on) stammers and the moral of the story doesnt enlighten anymore. History is not finished; experiences seek and out and find... the words to declare themselves and pass themselves on, but thats become an effort, a practice of resistance.'

Consider the different take Tiqqun offers here, where History is the subjugated female belonging to dominant agents of change - heroes and scholars  - compared with Fukyama's claim that the collapse of communism and triumpth of capitalism in 1989 was the 'end of history'