1. (DelSordi- 1) Describe my use of the âsociological imaginationâ and how it is applied to electoral/voting behavior. Provide a detailed historical example from the text.2. (DelSordi-1) How does positivism differ from postmodernism? How has postmodernism changed the field of sociology? Explain how postmodernism has altered our understanding of social problems (based on one major example in the reading)3.(DelSordi-1) How do sociologists see religion as an “ideology” that supports the capitalist system and the current power structure? Be specific!Chapter 1Introduction: Sociology as a Discipline- The SociologicalImagination and BeyondThis book is an attempt to address both the past and present of sociology.Practically speaking, my hope is to offer suggestions as to how it can move forward as adiscipline to assist in the advancement of social progress, democracy and humanpotential. As a critical theorist, this book is necessarily cynical, thus leading to theassertion that sociology become more engaged with current social problems andpostmodern social change. One of the more recent critiques of sociological authorship,leveled at the discipline by postmodernists, Marxists and scholars in the emerging schoolof cultural studies is that it has, for too long, engaged in limited, esoteric, and what I callâsecret writing,â preferring to model itself after the standards set forth by the naturalsciences, rather than the arts and humanities. In this sense, sociologists have created acertain distance, or discursive barrier, between the professionalism of academia and theeveryday realities of critically aware citizens who could use sociological insights to builda better, more humane world.We all have a sociological self! Yet the extent to which it develops depends uponthe ability of formal sociologists to focus less on grants, publications and professionalconferences geared toward themselves, and more on the general public who have begunto awaken from their false-consciousness that has become so deeply entrenched in postWWII America. This, to me, means that sociology also engage with other disciplines,theoretical schools, philosophies, and perhaps venues of knowledge production. It is akey insight of this book that in a postmodern world, text and context begin to blur, thusopening up a multi-directional path between social movements and social theory, andbetween empirical research and social action.Today is a normal Monday morning, where routine abounds. I embark on my long(45 mile) drive to work at a correctional facility where I work to promote rehabilitationthrough the education of criminal offenders. On my way to work, I immerse myself in thedigital culture of the 21st Century. Although I am often criticized by family and coworkersfor âmulti-taskingâ while driving, my typical response is that I am merely working in myportable office! When I step back and critically analyze myself, this scene and myinterconnected nature, I cannot help but think of the vast changes in technology and thedevelopment of the distinctly postmodern self that have taken place since my parents andgrandparents generation.Just two generations prior, my grandfather worked in an assembly line factory,creating die-casts for childrenâs toy train sets. He worked nearly walking distance fromhis home, a place in which my grandmother, a second generation Italian-American,tended to home and her son, never achieving basic literacy. My grandfather was barelyâdigitalâ or âvirtualâ to the extent that I am today (floating along in my high-tech, hybrid,electric vehicle, complete with television and full internet connection!). My grandfatherlistened to radio programs in his spare time, the dominant technology of the day. Today,at 92 years old, he still prefers to listen to the Yankee games on his ancient radio in thekitchen while cooking pasta (This is in part due to his partial blindness caused by intense,microscopic, factory work). My immersion in technology, digital culture andconsumerism is, of course, more intense than any other previous generation that has comebefore us. As a sociologist, however, I do not take this basic fact at face value. Instead, Imust interpret my existence, and my connection with the world, rapid social change,evolution and larger institutions, dialectically.To think dialectically, a construct brought forth by critical sociologists, is toenvision all social phenomena, including technological innovations, and the selfâsconnection to these modalities, in both a positive and negative framework. I considerprogressive social change within the discourse of social problems, and vice-versa. Yet thevery birth of a new idea (or thing) in our world generates its antithesis, or itscontradiction, which always already begins to challenge this newly emerging socialcondition. As the dialectical process of social change marches on, progress isâproblematized,â yet new progressive changes designed to deal with these problemsdevelop their own internal contradictions, or âproblems.â The process is never-ending! Incoming to terms with my sense of self within the context of the emerging digital cultureof the 21st Century, I invoke the dialectical method to compare my circumstances toprevious generations, such as my grandfathers.My potential, as a citizen, consumer, human are far greater than my grandfathers,given my immersion into virtuality, and the postmodern structures set in motion by thedigital revolutions of the last two decades. Information, knowledge and power areavailable almost immediately, suggesting a technological utopianism, where we use theproducts of our minds and hands to construct a more efficient, happy, productive andhumane world. The story of progress is not so simple, however, given the unintendedconsequences of technological advancement. Consider the context of my grandfatherâslife when he was in his 30s. Although disconnected from large-scale social media andpopular culture to a large extent, his world was one in which the pace of life and changewas significantly slower. At that moment in history, families (for the most part, âintactâ)spent much more time nurturing the bonds of the parent-child relationship. Americansalso spent a great deal of time constructing local communities through strong voluntaryassociations, which demanded direct participation and face-to-face interactions. Thissocial context promoted a culture with a high degree of trust, social solidarity, unionmembership and political action. Dialectically speaking, the Depression Generation wasdisconnected from much of the world and information, yet they were more connected atan interpersonal level. As we progressed as a civilization in the post-War period, wedeveloped a newfound sense of interconnectedness through technology and systems ofknowledge production. But as we âprogressedâ as a culture, we also lost many culturalelements that were integral to our sense of community and belonging. Are the gains ofprogressive change worth the potential costs? Have we truly evolved as a culture? Whattools do we have as sociologists to interpret these changes, and, in the end, to promotesustainable changes into the future?In a time of rapid transformation—both technological and cultural, an abidingquestion posed in this book is what role can sociology play in helping students (andcitizens) understand their world? Better yet, how can sociology move students to action,if at all, given the multiplication of academic disciplines and areas of study that havebecome available in the 21st century? Sociology began as an idea, essentially based on thenotion that human behavior and the consequences of our collective actions could beharnessed within the framework of a âscience of society,â whereby we could predict thefuture course of history and consequently contribute to the perfection of humanity. Whilea lofty, and possibly utopian ideal, the belief that one social scientific field could expediteprogress, reason and rationality better than any other that had come before was firstexpressed through 19th century philosophical texts. In particular, the French philosopherAuguste Comte argued intensely for a new perspective that would be the âpinnacle ofsciences,â building upon the existing knowledge produced by statistics, history,anthropology and all of the natural and social sciences combined. This fresh perspectivewould provide insight into the âlaws of social actionâ and help direct the evolution ofhuman civilization.Much has changed about the world since the mid-19th century. However, the focusof the founders of sociology, while mired in the utopianism of engineering socialâperfection,â is much the same for present day sociologists. The foundational thinkers insociology, Durkheim, Marx, Weber (among others), were animated by an abiding interestin the core problems related to the changing human condition—namely suffering,inequality and disconnection. Of course, these problems still drive the field today. Yet onthe other hand, these issues have taken new shape and have become concealed within thelarger matrix of power and manipulation enveloped within the 21st century âtechnocracy.âIn this sense, the sociologists of today are still intrigued by what the philosopher Hegeland later Western Marxists call âthe dialectic of progress,â or the strange persistence offundamental social problems despite the intensification of progressive changes intechnology, leisure and education. Yet if sociology is to remain relevant and adapt to theever-changing set of problems that are emerging, we must develop new methods andtechniques for understanding the complexity and concealed nature of this new socialcondition. I argue that sociology still remains the most relevant and adaptable field forstudying and influencing the relationship between the self and our mutually evolvingsurroundings. It is a central point of this book that sociology will continue to be relevantand have a lasting impact on progressive social change if it is able to âsynchâ withstudents and the next generation of critically aware citizens. To the extent that sociologycan become a democratically engaged, public endeavor while also remaining a privateprofession (or discipline), existing both inside and outside of the social control grid, itwill be a sustaining force for the implementation of social good.This book is a short introduction into the field of sociology as it currentlymanifests itself in the second decade of the 21st century. Yet the subtext of this book,beneath the manifest objective of helping expose students and the general public to aseemingly complex social science, is to promote a dialogue between other academicdisciplines, between active citizens of different generations and among those who areconcerned about the fate of humanity. As such, this book will necessarily be differentthan any other introductory text, in that I will engage the reader with current socialproblems and help you comprehend these issues using the discourse (language) ofsociology.In his seminal lecture on the âproperâ role of the sociologist, German thinker MaxWeber argued that we must possess âvalue freedom,â which is not to say that we strive tobe free of values (all people, of course, are riddled with values, opinions andperspectives), but that we must try to separate our scientific and factual statements aboutthe world we wish to analyze from the personal convictions that we hold. For the mostpart, sociologists conform to this tenet without questioning its fundamental contradictorynature. Critical sociologists, such as myself, are acutely aware that because humans arevalue-laden beings, and because our values shape our understanding of the world, thiswill have an unconscious influence on how we conduct ourselves as âprofessionalâ andsupposedly scientific sociologists. To say that we can separate our values from ourresearch and factual findings that stem from our research is akin to a soldier who isrequired to professionally train to kill for the state, but told not to feel empathy or guiltfor those whom he kills. It would also be similar to asking this very soldier to separate hispatriotism and motivations for joining the military from the objectives set forth on thebattlefield. Of course one can conceal these convictions and value positions (especiallywhen confronted by the demands of his commander), but in the end, values tend to âleakoutâ—perhaps even influence our actions whether conscious or not. For example, asociologist who is undertaking a scientific analysis of the patterns of birth rates and teenpregnancies among various social groups in America cannot help but take a stance onteen pregnancy. Maybe she had an abortion as a teen in order to continue school. Perhapsshe feels that young mothers face difficult choices between family, religion and personalachievement. This sociologist may have been a teen mother herself and has developedempathy for those whom she is studying. On the other hand, this analyst may havedisdain for those who gain public welfare funds based on their supposedly âpoorâchoices. In any case, a multitude of values and beliefs are conjured up during thisâscientificâ study. Should the sociologist choose to conceal these values, and would thisbe academically honest? Should the researcher reveal these assertions, would she riskbeing criticized for failing to meet the test of objectivity? A 21st Century sociology mustgrapple with these difficult questions yet still find innovative ways to work towardsolutions to social problems.These are the difficult choices that sociologists must make as they chooseprojects, research subjects, populations and methodologies. I contend that sociology isbest practiced from an academically honest position–whereby the researcher lay hervalue positions on the line (especially to the extent that these positions may alter thenature, scope and findings of her particular study). This allows the reader to judge theconclusions of the study within the context of the researcherâs values and their own set ofbeliefs. Yet this doesnât mean that sociology should abandon its goal of producingrelevant facts and findings that represent reality. As long as we understand that all of ourresearch is conducted within social and cultural contexts, and that both reader and writerhave taken-for-granted perspectives and biographies that influence what is produced, thenwe can remain academically honest as well as effective at understanding the nature of thehuman condition. It is important to note that sociology is one of the rare disciplines thatrequires the researcher to be implicated within that which we call our âsubject matter.âThis violates the normal ârulesâ of scientific inquiry because the scientific methodgenerally demands that we stand âoutsideâ of our subject matter to gain distance andobjectivity. However, what it means to be âscientificâ in the 21st century is constantlytransforming, especially within the rubric of âpostmodernismâ and other intellectualmovements that are both collapsing the gulf between disciplines and challenging thetraditional motif of sociology as a âvalue freeâ field dedicated to detached observationand rationality. The postmodern use of the concept âsituated objectivityâ enables us atonce to stand outside of our subject matter to obtain some degree of objectivity, but alsoto remain academically honest by revealing our particular subject position in the worldand how this position influences our research.The path by which I found sociology is unique and interesting, as are all storieswe tell. As an undergraduate student, my mentors emphasized a particular version ofsociology that was both critical in nature and open to interdisciplinarity—or the complexcombination of different academic disciplines, theories and perspectives. I was taughtearly on that sociology is but one of many ways of understanding the world (perhaps notthe most accurate!), and that sociology is only strengthened when we allow outsidevoices and perspectives inside the discipline. One particular Professor of mine, DavidJacobson, who I later worked alongside on research and theory building, once told methat sociology is both an art and a science, and that we must embrace each side of thisdichotomy equally. I wasnât quite sure what he meant by this statement, but I took it tomean that at the end of the workday, we should strive to produce good research andconclusions. (Whether this research approaches a âscienceâ or not is a debate for anothertime and place!). But I also interpreted this to mean that as an art, sociologists areessentially writers. We use a particular discourse, the language of sociology, to writeabout the world. In that sense, we are authors, we craft arguments about a complex set ofsocial conditions, which may or may not be accurate. And with this craft, we mustpractice, hone our skills, and try to understand our audience and their perspective on theworld. We must also keep our audience engaged, and tell them a story, because in the end,the history of the world is really just one big story! As an art, sociology can contribute tothe humanities. In fact, as Charles Lemert has suggested, there are really multipleâsociologiesâ– or a plurality of voices and styles that can be considered legitimate. Thesocial world, interaction and behavior are complex. As artists, we paint a picture of thisworld as best we can using discourse, our central tool, to help our audience (the readers)experience this world and all of its complexities.Just as many of my mentors experienced the Vietnam War, the Civil RightsMovement and Womenâs Liberation in the 1960s as catalyzing events of their generation,which shaped their sociological imagination, key events have moved me to see the worldin a particular fashion. As a new graduate student, the September 11th attacks had justoccurred two weeks into my first semester of classes. I recall the somber tone andrhetoric around campus. All of our Professors quickly shifted gears and devoted at leastone week of classes to discussing the event and all of the surrounding issues. I recall oneProfessor who recounted his days as a graduate student in the late 1960s, when studentmovements were taking place all across America based on a host of interconnected issuesrelating to war, power, inequality, race and culture. This particular Professor critiqued ourgeneration, claiming that we donât participate democratically and we fail to engage withthe issues of our time. I took this message to heart, and to a certain extent I felt that hewas correct in his assessment. That moment, that critique of my generation, was pivotalfor me because from that point on I made it a point to work as best I could to understandthe problems that were emerging in our world. Furthermore, I vowed to help othersunderstand these issues and help the next generation of students be more engaged in theworld.The Baby Boomerâs critique of Generation Xâs (those of us born between 1965and 1979) apathy toward social problems was correct. But as a âGen Xâer,â I also see thenext generation, the âY Generationâsâ apathy as an even more intense problem. The YGeneration is the digital generation. They are more connected through electronic meansthan any previous generation. The potential for this new technology to be used to increasecivic engagement is profound, but I also fear that this new generation has become easilydistracted by this very same technology and this has produced a new level of what Marxcalled âfalse consciousness.â I worry that students are so engulfed in the present, sorushed to achieve and find good careers (like previous generations), that they do not havethe time to step back and contemplate their lives and the direction that this nation (andcivilization) are headed. My students have everything at their fingertips—all theknowledge and writing of previous generations. Knowledge is power! But are theysharing this knowledge? Are they using this knowledge to produce radical change? Hasthe virtual world numbed them to the prospect that they have the agency to affect changeand think radically? I recently watched a documentary film about the early Civil Rightsand Free Speech Movement protests on the campus of Berkley. In 1964, the Universityattempted to ban students from organizing around political issues on campus. Upset bythis denial of their right to free speech, 1,500 students were able to effectively organizeand occupy Sproul Hall and force the campus President to negotiate with students. Thatthese students were able to orchestrate such an event, without the leverage of socialnetworking technologies suggests that human connection, empathy and passion are theprimary drivers of social movements. The high speed communication technologies oftoday, then, primarily represent distractions from the business of building a better world.Can these technologies be used to increase face-to-face communication and politicalaction? And if so, can this communication heighten our sense of humanity and our sharedfate in the world? Would Facebook have facilitated (or hindered) the mass protests amongstudents in the 1960s?As I sit on an airplane composing the first chapter of this book on my laptop, Icannot help but question how quickly our society, culture, and sense of community havechanged in the last decade alone. The rate of cultural change has moved exponentially. Ifculture, understood as the total way of life shared by members of a distinct community, isconsidered the domain of sociology, then we should be concerned about the direction thatAmerican culture is headed. Over the last two decades, social analysts of culture andcommunity such as Theda Skocpol, Robert Putnam and Stanley Eitzen have developed acritique of American culture and argued that our sense of belonging has changed inprofound, yet negative ways. Putnam argued that we have witnessed a decline in âsocialcapital,â or the face-to-face networks that sustain our common culture, solidarity, andperhaps patriotism and trust of one another. He documents that over the last twogenerations, the trust that we have for our neighbors has been cut in half. Further, heexplains that Americans simply do not participate in local activities–in particular what hecalls âneighboring,â or the likelihood of spending a social evening with ones neighbors.In fact, current research suggests that a full 1/3 of Americans have now never spent asocial evening with a neighbor. Recent research suggests that American teens spend, onaverage, 9 hours per day using social media and watching television (Wallace, 2015). Is itany wonder that that we have no time left in our day to engage with our neighbors! In arelated study, Theda Skocpol found strong evidence to suggest that not only has socialcapital declined, but our participation and belief in the political process has waned.Political movements and organizations are professionally managed by top-downbureaucrats, grassroots action has nearly completely died, and the democratic process hasbecome high-jacked by lobbyists and private/corporate interests. Recent survey researchfound that only 19% of the public trust the government; the lowest level in 50 years (seeGao, 2015). In essence, we have experienced a âdiminished democracyâ and our socialconnectedness has been damaged. With each successive generation, this disconnection, orâanomie,â to use Durkheimâs terminology, has only intensified.With all of these related social developments, the larger question is what hascaused this process to happen in such a short timeframe? Stanley Eitzen provides someinsight as to which cultural transformations have weakened social capital, connectednessand democracy. To Eitzen, the most disturbing trend in âpost-Generation Xâ America isthe rise of what he terms âhyper-individualism.â To be precise, individualism is a coreAmerican value and has been foundational to our nationâs dominance, progress,innovation, democracy, and rule of law. However, all cultural elements in their mostextreme manifestations can have unintended consequences for a society. Standardindividualism has been positive for the development of America as we know it in thepost-WWII era. Yet the current version of individualist culture favors greed overcompassion, profit over community, technology over deeply meaningful connections. It isprecisely this ârabidâ form of narcissistic âhyper-individualismâ which has contributed tothe decline of community and democratic strength in America. A symptom of this culturalshift is the inability of the average American to think critically and use what Ben Aggercalls their âtheoretical attitudeâ—or the distancing of oneâs self from the everydayhappenings of their life to challenge and question the meaning of both social relations andthings. Hyper-individualism privileges Lady GaGa over the Iraq War and the Kardashiansover economic inequality. Hyper-individualism is represented by an over-reliance on theânatural attitudeâ (or that which does not step outside of the world to critically examineissues). As Americans focus more and more on who won the Super Bowl, the gapbetween the wealth of the rich and poor in Ame…