Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 18:15:44 -0400 (EDT) >From: MIRIAM D. ROSENTHAL - PH.D. To: gimenez@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Teaching History of Sociological Thought AN EGALITARIAN COURSE IN CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Steven J. Rosenthal Department of Sociology Hampton University Hampton, VA 23668 Revised and Resubmitted to TEACHING SOCIOLOGY March, 1995 AN EGALITARIAN COURSE IN CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY. INTRODUCTION: CLASSICAL THEORY AS A WESTERN WHITE MALE BASTION A decade ago Judith Stacey and Barrie Thorne wrote in "The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology" (1985: pp. 301-02)) that "feminists have made important contributions to sociology, but we have yet to transform the basic conceptual frameworks of the field...Feminist sociology," they asserted, "seems to have been both co-opted and ghettoized, while the discipline as a whole and its dominant paradigms have proceeded relatively unchanged." For example, "rare are the courses on sociological theory or methodology that even include feminist literature, let alone those that attempt to use feminist questions to rethink sociological canons." In their conclusions, Stacey and Thorne go further. They assert, "A feminist critique is not the only missing revolution 1 in sociology, nor could it, by itself, produce an adequate epistemology...The inclusive knowledge we seek would as equally attend to race, class, and sexuality as to gender" (1985: p. 311). Although many Sociology courses and textbooks have become more "multicultural," classical sociological theory courses and texts have remained bastions of race, class, gender, and Eurocentric bias. Textbook authors and teachers still give little or no attention to theorists who are not Western white males from privileged classes. Even more importantly, they present the classical sociological theory "canon" without critically examining the racist, sexist, class biased, and Eurocentric values and assumptions which permeate the thinking and writings of these theorists. In the first half of this article I present a critique of the classical sociological theory course as it is presently taught. I describe how this critique is intellectually grounded in an egalitarian framework which places the problems of class, race, and gender inequality at the center of sociological theory. This egalitarian framework is comprised of interconnected and overlapping anti-capitalist, anti-Eurocentric, anti-racist, and anti-sexist critiques. I then utilize this egalitarian framework to put forward a critical reassessment of the main theorists who are studied in courses in classical sociological theory: Comte, Durkheim, and Parsons; Spencer Sumner, Freud, and Pareto; and Weber and Marx. 2 In the second half of the article I describe the course which I have developed and taught during the past decade to African American sociology majors at Hampton University. What began as an effort by a white male teacher to include African American and women theorists in the course has gradually evolved into a course whose structure and content attempt to affirm and embody principles of race, class, and gender equality. I explain the structure and content of the course, the reactions of the students, and the impact the course has had on the students' appreciation of sociological theory. The persistence of race, gender, class, and Eurocentric bias in classical sociological theory texts and courses should be of concern to all sociologists. Classical theory is the course that teaches what is considered "classical" in the discipline. The term "classical" conveys such meanings as "fundamental," "most enduring," "most important," and "best." While other sociology courses and their textbooks undergo frequent (though often superficial) make-overs in response to trendy fads, change in classical sociological theory courses and textbooks requires fundamental change in the paradigms and power structures of the discipline itself. Recent changes in the most "enlightened" classical theory textbooks demonstrate that progress has thus far been very modest. For example, the fifth edition of The Discovery of Society (Collins and Makowsky, 1993), contains ten pages on W.E.B. DuBois, E. Franklin Frazier and other African American sociologists. This is probably the first theory text to discuss 3 any African American sociologists. Ritzer's Sociological Theory has for some time (1995, 1991, 1988) included one chapter on feminist theory. The fifth edition of Zeitlin's Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory (1994) includes a chapter on Mary Wollstonecraft. One African American, one woman, or one chapter thus seems to be the "quota." The mode for the majority of current theory textbooks, however, remains zero non-Europeans and women. More innovative than these textbooks is a "post--modernist" reader edited by Lemert, Social Theory: The Multicultural & Classic Readings (1993). In his "Introduction" Lemert distinguishes between "professional" and "lay" social theorists and insists upon the value and legitimacy of both. He thus democratizes social theory by conceptualizing it as a "normal accomplishment" of human beings. He observes that "the classical theorists" who were "the recognized experts in social theory" were "white, male advocates of European culture" and "members of or identified with a dominant class of bourgeois intellectuals. (Lemert, 1993:1-23) If we apply Lemert's distinction between "professional" and "lay" social theorists, we find that most of the theorists who are typically studied in sociological theory courses were actually not "professional sociologists." Karl Marx studied law, philosophy, political economy, and revolution. Max Weber was primarily trained in history and economics. Herbert Spencer was an engineer, William G. Sumner was a theologian, Lester Ward was a paleobotanist, and Charles H. Cooley was a mechanical engineer 4 and economist. George Herbert Mead and Georg Simmel were trained in philosophy, Freud in medicine and psychoanalysis, Wilfredo Pareto in science and economics, and even Talcott Parsons primarily in economics and anthropology. It is thus not a question of whether it is academically acceptable to include both "professional" and "lay" sociologists in a course in classical sociological theory. It is rather a question of which "professional" and "lay" sociologists should be studied. Lemert's post-modernist answer to this question is implicitly that we should study everyone, because all "narratives" or "standpoints" are equal. Lemert serves up "a little of everything" in his reader without offering a critique of any theories. This plays into the hands of conservative critics, who argue that "multiculturalists" are responsible for the "decomposition" of sociology as a scientific discipline. (Horowitz, 1993) My critique of the traditional course in classical sociological theory is not grounded in a post-modernist relativism. It is grounded in an egalitarian framework that incorporates anti-capitalist, anti-Eurocentric, anti-racist, and anti-sexist critiques. It is not only inclusive of the voices of people of color, women, and workers. It also places issues of race, gender, and class inequality and equality at the center of the study of classical sociological theory. The egalitarianism which I affirm is not that all theories or theorists are equal. It is that all sociological theories and theorists should be evaluated not only on the basis of whether 5 they provide coherent and testable explanations of a wide range of human social behavior. They should also be evaluated on the basis of what they say about the experiences of all of humanity, not just those of a particular social class, race, gender, or geographic region. Theories which reinforce inequality by ignoring or marginalizing the experiences of much of humanity, and theories which legitimize inequality by incorporating unscientific biological or psychological reductionist ideologies should not be uncritically presented as the "scientific" achievements of classical sociological theory. They should be criticized, and anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-Eurocentric theories should be presented as contrasting alternatives. The classical sociological theory course which I teach critically examines the theories of Comte, Spencer/Sumner, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Park and Chicago Sociology, Pareto, Lenin, and Gramsci, Parsons and Mills. To these I have added the African American sociologists W.E.B. DuBois, E. Franklin Frazier, and Oliver C. Cox, feminists Jane Addams and Alexandra Kollontai, and Third World revolutionaries Mao Tse-tung, Kwame Nkrumah, and Frantz Fanon. To fit all this material into one semester I have grouped theorists together and focused on their analysis of inequality. Chronologically, the course begins in the late eighteenth century and ends in the 1950's. The second semester course in contemporary sociological theory in my department begins with the 1960's, because we view that decade as a watershed in the discipline of sociology. 6 The most influential sources of my critique of classical sociological theory can be grouped into highly overlapping anti- capitalist, anti-Eurocentric, anti-racist, and anti-sexist sources. The anti-capitalist sources obviously include the work of Marx and Engels and the work of twentieth century Marxists such as Lenin, Gramsci, and Mao Tse-tung. Marxist oriented critiques of sociological theory that I have found helpful include of Zeitlin's text (1968) and its subsequent revised editions, the work of the Schwendingers (1974), and Knapp and Spector's recent restatement of Marxist sociology (1991). The critique of Eurocentrism has been most effectively presented by Edward Said (1979, 1993) and Martin Bernal (1987). Other works that have helped me overcome my own Eurocentric mis- education are the writings of Rodney (1982), Weatherford (1988, 1991, 1994), Stannard (1992) Abu-Lughod (1989), and the world system work of Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1988). Influential contributions to the anti-racist critique include Ladner (1973), Staples, (1976), Ryan (1976), for the critique of theories of "cultural inferiority," Lyman (1972), especially the critique of Sumner and Park, Omi and Winant (1986), and critiques of academic racism and biological determinism by Gould (1981), Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin (1984), Chase (1977), and Tucker (1994). Among many sources of feminist critiques of sexism in sociology are Wallace (1989), Deegan (1986), Collins (1990), Abbott and Wallace (1992), Stacey and Thorne (1985), and the 7 anthologies edited by Anderson and Collins (1992) and Rothenberg (1992). AN EGALITARIAN CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY While most of this critique has understandably focused on contemporary sociology, its implications for classical sociological theory have not yet been systematically explored. In the following pages I set forth some important elements of an egalitarian critique of major classical sociological theorists. INEQUALITY AS "FUNCTIONALLY NECESSARY": COMTE, DURKHEIM, PARSONS Comte is usually credited with being the "founder" of Sociology as a new "science of society," but Comte invented this "science" as a weapon to be used by a small elite to restore order in post-revolutionary France. Comte's sociology explicitly elevated the European white race over all other races, men over women, and an elite class of industrialists and intellectuals over the great mass of working people. Durkheim shared Comte's preoccupation with social order. While Comte could go no further than offering threatened rulers empty promises of utopian schemes to restore order, Durkheim, as an influential scholar and advisor to the French government, had the insights and opportunities to obtain significant practical results. He regarded shared values (the conscience collective) as the essential basis of social order, and called the absence of such shared values anomie. Durkheim urged that public schools instill in children a reverence for society, functionally equivalent to the religious worship of God. He urged the 8 acceptance of the division of labor and thought that occupational guilds might reconcile people to their functions in society. Durkheim wrote an entire book (Socialism and Saint Simon, [1928] 1958) explaining his opposition to socialism. He opposed its "working class" character, yet his entire body of sociological theory sought to deny the bourgeois character of capitalist society and its institutions. In Suicide (1951, pp. 249-52), Durkheim explicitly set forth the reasons for his opposition to equality. He argued, "A genuine regimen exists...which fixes with relative precision the maximum degree of ease of living to which each social class may legitimately aspire...Under this pressure each in his sphere vaguely realizes the extreme limit set to his ambitions and aspires to nothing beyond. At least if he respects regulations and is docile to collective authority, that is, has a wholesome moral constitution, he feels that it is not well to ask more...One sort of heredity will always exist, that of natural talent. Intelligence, taste, scientific, artistic, literary or industrial ability, courage and manual dexterity are gifts received by each of us at birth...A moral discipline will therefore still be required to make those less favored by nature accept the lesser advantages which they owe to the chance of birth. Shall it be demanded that all have an equal share and that no advantage be given those more useful and deserving? But then there would have to be a discipline far stronger to make these accept a treatment merely equal to that of the mediocre and incapable." 9 This biological reductionist argument, articulated in the very book in which Durkheim sought to prove that "social facts can only be explained by social facts," demonstrates that Durkheim's ideological commitment to inequality overrode his commitment to scientific method and shaped his theories and research. Parsons combined Durkheim with Weber, Pareto, and British economist Alfred Marshall to bring European functionalism to the United States. Parsons added to Durkheim's functionalist paradigm: (1) the Weberian view of Western capitalism as resting on a rational, universalistic, achievement ethos; (2) Pareto's view that social order ultimately rests upon a non-rational and hierarchical foundation; and (3) a view of the capitalist economy as a rational efficient system of production and distribution. In his distinctive highly abstract style, Parsons conveyed the message that society is based upon common values, and that post World War II United States society, notwithstanding its institutionalized inequalities of class, race, and gender, was the best of all possible worlds. ELITISM, RACISM, SEXISM, AND FASCISM: SPENCER, SUMNER, FREUD, PARETO Spencer and Sumner were, of course, Social Darwinists. Their biological determinist and reductionist paradigm championed social inequalities of class, race, and gender. It is fundamentally at odds with the principles of scientific sociology. The views of Spencer and Sumner were vigorously 10 promoted in the United States by capitalist elites, much as the similar views of Herrnstein and Murray's book The Bell Curve, (1994) have recently been promoted. Sumner developed many of his sociological concepts and theories as weapons with which to denounce racial equality (Lyman, 1972). He insisted that the "folkways" and "mores" could not be changed so that he could to discredit Reconstruction as a "foolish attempt to remake the world." Freud's theories of women's sexual fantasies and "penis envy" were shaped by his refusal to believe the stories of sexual abuse which his female patients reported to him. He advocated using psychiatric techniques to adjust women to patriarchal institutions in a sexist society, rather than advocating an end to the oppression of women. Freud also insisted in Civilization and its Discontents (1946) that human nature required the institution of private property. Pareto's theory of the "circulation of elites" was shaped by his contemptuous refusal to take seriously the aspirations of the masses. Pareto insisted that "the demand for equality is nothing but a disguised manner of demanding a privilege." His effort to discredit the demand for equality is echoed today by those who condemn affirmative action as "reverse discrimination." Pareto's denial of the reality of workers' oppression led him to champion Mussolini as the fascist "lion" who would crush the Italian working class. Today those who agitate against "reverse discrimination" incite violent scapegoating of Blacks, women, and immigrants. 11 The combination of biological determinism, racism, sexism, elitism, scapegoating, anti-communism, and nationalism has in the twentieth century become the ideology of fascism. Pareto, along with Mosca and Michels, openly embraced European fascism during the 1920's, and in the 1930's Talcott Parsons participated in the "Pareto circle" at Harvard. On the other hand, the Marxist Gramsci died in an Italian fascist prison, and African American sociologists DuBois, Frazier, and Cox forcefully and insightfully condemned fascism. EUROCENTRISM AND INEQUALITY: A REASSESSMENT OF WEBER AND MARX The critique of Eurocentrism has been put forward most effectively by Edward Said (1979, 1993) and Martin Bernal (1987). Although they write in the disciplines of Literature and History, their critiques are highly pertinent to sociological theory. Said has argued that, since the rise of Western imperialism, cultural and scholarly activity in the West has been infused with a dualistic (Occident versus Orient) Eurocentric outlook. Bernal has argued that world history has been rewritten since the eighteenth century in order to legitimize European domination and exploitation of Africa and Asia. Entire academic disciplines, from Art History to Anthropology, were developed to purvey a Eurocentric world view. After one has read Said and Bernal, one cannot read Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism without recognizing the profoundly Eurocentric and racist implications of 12 Weber's viewpoint. Consider th0e following excerpts from the "Author's Introduction" to that work: "...in Western civilization only, cultural phenomena have appeared which...lie in a line of development having universal significance and value. Only in the West does science exist at a stage of development which we recognize today as valid...A similar statement is true of art...Above all is this true of the trained official, the pillar of both the modern State and of the economic life of the West...the world has known no rational organization of labour outside the modern Occident...We are dealing with the connection of the spirit of modern economic life with the rational ethics of ascetic Protestantism. ...When we find again and again that, even in departments of life apparently mutually independent, certain types of rationalization have developed in the Occident, and only there, it would be natural to suspect that the most important reason lay in differences of heredity. The author admits that he is inclined to think the importance of biological heredity very great...when comparative racial neurology and psychology shall have progressed beyond their present and in many ways very promising beginnings, can we hope for even the probability of a satisfactory answer to that problem." (1958:13-31) Weber thus identified "rationality" as a unique characteristic of Western capitalism. He suspected that the cultural superiority of the West would prove to have a biological basis. Karl Marx, however, offered an interpretation of the rise of capitalism in the West that is diametrically opposed to 13 that of Weber. Marx saw capitalism primarily as an exploitative and alienating system that should be condemned and overthrown, rather than as a unique Western achievement. Consequently, his discussion of "primitive accumulation" in Volume III of Capital was a ringing indictment that linked the rise of Western capitalism to genocide and slavery: "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation...These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the colonial system...Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one...If money, according to Augier, 'comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,' capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." (1867:754- 760) I have quoted Weber and Marx rather extensively in order to emphasize the differences between their approaches to the study of Western capitalism. Most theory textbooks contend that Weber and Marx complement each other, that Weber merely corrected Marx's one-sided economic determinism by giving more attention to the role of ideas. This interpretation misrepresents both Weber and Marx. The actual differences between Weber and Marx are most clearly evident in their views of social inequality and 14 capitalism. Marx advocated and fought for an egalitarian classless society. Weber denounced a classless society as undesirable and impossible and condemned the Russian Revolution. Marx advocated internationalism, urging the world's workers to unite. Writing about slavery and racism in Volume I of Capital (1961, p. 301), Marx asserted, "In the United States of North America every independent movement of the workers was paralyzed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. In contrast, Weber criticized Prussian landowners for importing cheaper Polish workers and called for their replacement by German workers. His call for "value-free" science was a call to put the "national interest" of the German state above personal political opinion. During World War I, Weber supported the German empire, arguing, "Only Herrenvolker (master nations) may feel called upon to manipulate the spokes of international developments" (Gesammelte Politische Schriften [Collected Political Writings], 1956, p. 259, cited in Dronberger, 1971, pp. 271-72). He urged German workers to put their nation before their class, just as he argued in his analysis of "Class, Status, and Party" that people formed communities on the basis of status groups rather than class. Weber was so distraught at the defeat in World War I of "our German Army, which protects our country against uncivilized people," that he went so far as to write that "...an army of Negroes, Ghurkas and all other barbaric riff-raff in the world is stationed at our borders, half crazy with rage, 15 revenge, and greed to devastate our country..." (Weber, 1956, pp. 209-10, cited in Dronberger, 1971, p.195). As Gerth and Mills (1946) described, after World War I Max Weber was intensely preoccupied with the restoration of a strong military leadership for Germany. Simply put, Weber did not question inequalities of resulting from capitalism, imperialism, racism, and sexism. Weber did not believe that any of these forms of social inequality could or should be done away with. He developed no particular theories of racial or gender inequality. His explanation of international inequality--of the distinction between Herrenvolker and other peoples--derived from his study of world religions, was that "traditional" cultures, in contrast to "rational" Western cultures, impeded the development of the spirit of capitalism. Karl Marx argued that the working class was robbed by class exploitation, that Blacks, Native Americans, Asians and Africans were brutally oppressed by colonialism, and that the subjugation of women was inextricably bound up with the existence of class society. Max Weber, on the other hand, asserted that western capitalism derived its wealth from rational, methodical, peaceful means, and insisted that war, plunder, and piracy were separate and distinct from modern Western capitalism. A MODEL FOR AN EGALITARIAN COURSE IN CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY In the second half of this article I describe the structure and content of the course I currently teach in classical 16 sociological theory, and the impact the course has had on students' attitudes toward sociological theory. The course is presently comprised of seven units which are described below. Approximately two weeks are devoted to each unit, but some units require more than two weeks and some require less. 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW. For Unit One students read this paper and discuss the issues and questions it raises: What is classical sociological theory and who is a classical sociological theorist? How are the answers to these questions affected by class, race, and gender bias and Eurocentrism? What is the significance and relevance of classical sociological theory for undergraduate sociology majors today? What should students learn from this course? Drawing upon the work of Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1988), Abu-Lughod (1989), Stannard (1992), Weatherford (1988, 1991), Davis (1984), and Rodney (1982) I try to provide a concise overview of the world as it existed prior to the rise of the capitalist world system. I point out that, prior to the fourteenth century, European societies were not internally more advanced than or economically dominant over societies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. I briefly summarize the arguments of Martin Bernal (1987) and Edward Said (1979, 1993), in order to encourage students to confront their assumptions about "Western civilization," history, and culture. Bernal and Said link the rise of Eurocentrism in Western history, literature, art, music, and science with the 17 rise of European capitalism, racism, and colonialism. I urge students to think about whether Bernal's and Said's insights also apply to classical sociological theory. I then take up Comte's "invention" of sociology and its relationship to the French Revolution and the mass upheavals that Comte wanted to quell. The rise of European sociology is usually attributed to the questions raised by the conflicts between the declining feudal order and the rising industrial society. I broaden this Eurocentric perspective by discussing the Haitian revolution, the only successful slave revolution in the Western hemisphere. French revolutionaries denounced the feudal aristocracy, but the Haitian revolutionaries and their supporters in the French Assembly denounced the "aristocracy of the skin," i.e., the enslavement of Africans by Europeans. The emergence of sociology is thus linked not only to the revolutionary transformation of European societies, but also to revolutionary struggle against slavery, colonialism, and racism. Similarly, the work of Harriet Martineau and Mary Wollstonecraft is brought into this introductory unit. Their work challenges the notion of sociology as a male domain. Wollstonecraft in particular, in demanding equality for middle class women, criticized the sexist views of Rousseau and other French revolutionaries. The infusion of Black and feminist perspectives at the beginning of the course thus tries to establish the point that the experiences of all people must be the basis for studying and evaluating sociological theory. 18 2. MAX WEBER AND KARL MARX: CONTRASTING THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF CAPITALISM AND "WESTERN" SOCIETIES. In Unit Two students plunge into the challenges and complexities of sociological theory. Our investigation of Weber and Marx begins with a comparison of their interpretations of the origins of Western capitalism. Students read brief excerpts from Weber's introduction to his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Marx's short description of "primitive accumulation" in Capital. This permits the instructor to discuss whether Western capitalism is based on slavery and genocide, the role of ideologies in history and social change, and the connections between Weber and "modernization" theory and Marx and "world system" theory. Students then read textbook summaries of the theories of Weber and Marx. They are also assigned excerpts from The Communist Manifesto and from Weber's writings. Discussion of Engels' essay, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State provides an opportunity to emphasize both Engels' theory that inequality between women and men originated with the transition from communal to class societies, as well as the anti- Eurocentric implications of Morgan's research on Native American societies. A discussion of Marx and Engels' writings on the U.S. Civil War and British rule in Ireland and India provide opportunities to analyze how Marx and Engels dealt with questions of racism and imperialism. 3. DURKHEIM, PARETO, AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY IN EUROPE. 19 In Unit Three Durkheim's theories are examined in depth, while Pareto is studied more briefly. Students read textbook chapters and excerpts from Durkheim's writings on suicide, the division of labor, religion, and social inequality, and from Pareto's writings on inequality and the circulation of elites. Durkheim's theory that society rests upon values and that social problems derive from anomie is related to similar views that are popular today. Pareto's theory that all demands for equality are actually demands for privilege is related to the current debate over affirmative action. 4. ABOLITIONISM, SOCIAL DARWINISM, THE CHICAGO SCHOOL, AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES. The study of sociological theory in the United States usually begins with Sumner and Social Darwinism and then proceeds to the Chicago School. I begin Unit Four with Abolitionism and especially the ideas of Frederick Douglass. I do this because I want students to discover the egalitarian sociological theories Abolitionists held which led them to believe that it was both necessary and possible to destroy slavery. Unlike nineteenth century Social Darwinists, whose theories of society rested upon a biological reductionist defense of inequalities of race, class, and gender, Douglass, John Brown, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and the Grimke sisters resolutely rejected biological justifications of social inequality. As activists who tested their ideas in practice and proved many of them to be accurate, Abolitionists were arguably the best 20 sociological theorists of their time in the United States. They recognized that a successful Black-white anti-slavery alliance could be built. They dealt with similarities and differences between the subjugation of Blacks and women, as well as the efforts of their enemies to pit Blacks and women against each other. They recognized that conflict and struggle were necessary to bring about social change, and that they would have to fight against new forms of racist exploitation even after slavery was abolished. Abolitionists thus provide an egalitarian standard against which nineteenth and twentieth century U.S. sociological theorists can be measured. I begin the analysis of the theorists of the Chicago School by discussing the virtually hegemonic position of the Chicago School in general and Robert Park and his assimilationist approach (Lyman, 1972) to the field of race relations in particular. We discuss Robert Park's close relationship with Booker T. Washington and the similarities between European colonial strategies in Africa and the encouragement of Booker T. Washington's accommodationist leadership in the U.S. I also discuss how Chicago sociology defined a subordinate role for women (Deegan, 1986). Jane Addams and other women were defined as social workers rather than sociologists and relegated to the academic margins. Nevertheless, Addams and other women made significant contributions to the study of social problems and the struggle for social reform. Finally, the Chicago School's studies of immigrant working class communities provide an opportunity to discuss how early twentieth century U.S. 21 sociologists dealt with labor union militancy, socialism, anti- immigrant nativism, and eugenics. 5. TWENTIETH CENTURY MARXISTS: LENIN, KOLLONTAI, GRAMSCI, MAO TSE-TUNG. The writings of these four revolutionaries address issues that are central to an egalitarian critique of sociological theory. Lenin insisted that revolutionaries must adopt a principled stand against imperialism and in support of national liberation. The new revolutionary movement formed under Soviet leadership thus transformed a relatively Eurocentric Marxism into a more international communism. Study of Alexandra Kollontai, a high ranking woman in the Bolshevik leadership both before and after the revolution, provides an excellent opportunity to investigate important theoretical and historical questions about the relationship between feminism and Marxism. Kollontai criticized "bourgeois feminism" and insisted that liberation for the vast majority of women could only come as part of a working class revolution against capitalism. After the Russian revolution, Kollontai played a leading role in struggling for the emancipation of Soviet women. She fought for practical steps such as women's rights to divorce, abortion, equal pay, paid maternity leave, free child care, health care, education, and re-education of men. While significant steps were made in the direction of equality during the 1920's and 1930's, this egalitarian thrust was 22 increasingly sacrificed to pressures for industrialization and preparation for the war against fascism. Antonio Gramsci's place in sociological theory today has been defined both by post-modernists who, in their efforts to "de-center" thought, have appropriated Gramsci's concept of "hegemony," and by Marxists who have emphasized ideological aspects of the struggle against capitalism.. Gramsci developed the concept of "hegemony" in order to understand how fascists gained an ideological hold over masses of people and to guide communist efforts to win over these masses to fight against fascism. Thus, the study of Gramsci's theories provides an opportunity to discuss the role of ideology in perpetuating inequality. The concept has thus appropriately been applied to sociological theory itself. Mao Tse-tung adapted Marxism to a predominantly peasant Third World country and led the largest revolutionary movement the world has thus far seen. Even though China, like Russia, has returned to the "capitalist road," Mao's analysis of Chinese society and his strategy for combining national liberation and class struggle deserve to be studied, for the Chinese Revolution was an event of great sociological importance. Moreover, the increasing poverty and inequality throughout much of the Third World today makes it likely that new revolutionary movements (i.e., the rebellion in Chiapas) will arise in the future. A course in classical sociological theory should equip our students with some tools for understanding those movements. 23 6. AFRICAN AMERICAN AND AFRICAN SOCIOLOGISTS: DUBOIS, FRAZIER, COX, NKRUMAH, FANON. I incorporate discussion of African American sociologists throughout the course, especially where their theories contrast with those which we are discussing at the time. For example, I contrast DuBois' analysis of Black Reconstruction (1935) with that of Sumner; DuBois' analysis of race relations with that of Park. I compare Frazier's analysis of the Black Bourgeoisie (1957) and Cox's (1948) analysis of capitalism and racism with the theories of Weber and Marx. In this section of the course, however, I provide a more extensive analysis of three major African American sociologists and two African theorists. Emphasizing DuBois' roles of both scholar and activist, I discuss his pioneering study The Philadelphia Negro, his theory of the "talented tenth," his anti- racist reinterpretation of Black Reconstruction, his interest in socialism, his leadership in the anti-colonial and Pan-African causes, his interpretations of race and class, and his later embrace of Marxism and Communism. Students read excerpts from DuBois' writings. My discussion of Frazier draws upon Platt's recent (1991) E. Franklin Frazier Reconsidered, which seeks to correct Moynihan's misrepresentation of Frazier as a "victim blamer" in the "Black pathology" tradition. I particularly emphasize Frazier's Black Bourgeoisie, from which students read brief excerpts, pointing out that Frazier was the first sociologist to interpret the significance of class differences among African Americans. 24 Moreover, unlike William J. Wilson, who unfavorably contrasted the so-called "underclass" to the middle class, Frazier unfavorably contrasted the middle class to the working class. My discussion of Oliver C. Cox focuses on his major work, Caste, Class, and Race. I point out that Cox, anticipating the sociology of the world system, sought to produce a historical and global analysis of social stratification, especially of the relationship between racism and capitalism. Students read several excerpts from Caste, Class, and Race, including Cox's insightful class analysis of fascism and World War II. I conclude this unit with a discussion of the application of sociological theory to African societies. I focus on Kwame Nkrumah and his essay, Class Struggle in Africa. I contrast Nkrumah's Marxist analysis in this work with the more nationalist and Pan-Africanist thrust of Frantz Fanon's writings. I also point out the similarities between Nkrumah's essay and Frazier's Black Bourgeoisie. I also incorporate here a discussion of the first chapter of Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (1982) and the third chapter from Ali Mazrui's The Africans (1986), written as a companion book to the PBS Television Series. Rodney's analysis helps students get beyond stereotyped and oversimplified views of African and European societies. He utilizes the Marxian concept of "uneven development" to demonstrate that a variety of societies existed on the African continent prior to the arrival of Europeans. These societies ranged from egalitarian communal 25 villages to elaborately stratified feudal empires to proto- capitalist trading states. Mazrui (1986:63-79) critically analyzes two stereotyped views of African societies, which he labels "romantic gloriana" and "romantic primitivism." The former, accepting "European" standards of greatness, asserts that Africans also built great states, empires, and monuments. The latter, rejecting "European" standards, extols egalitarian communal village life. Mazrui shows that both viewpoints are one-sided reactions to racist European characterizations of African societies as inferior. These discussions are aimed at getting students to understand that similar sociological questions can be asked about European and African societies, and that similar sociological theories can be applied to European and African societies. I also point out the relevance of this discussion to our earlier discussion of how Marx and Weber interpreted the rise of capitalism and our discussion of how Engels and Morgan analyzed Native American societies. 7. PARSONS AND MILLS. This concluding unit in the course offers a summary of Parsons' functionalist theory and provides a transition to the second semester course in Contemporary Sociological Theory. Students read excerpts from Parsons and excerpts of Mills' critique in The Sociological Imagination. I discuss how Parsons brought Weber, Durkheim, and other European theorists into 26 American sociology and the hegemonic position of functionalist theory from the end of World War II down to the 1960's. I summarize Mills' major works, The Power Elite, White Collar, and The Sociological Imagination, and conclude with a brief discussion of Listen, Yankee!, Mills' polemic in defense of the Cuban Revolution. I point out that Mills was an important critical voice in American sociology prior to the 1960's, but I also point out that Mills, like Parsons, demonstrated little understanding of either racism or sexism. Consequently, neither the overly optimistic Parsons nor the overly pessimistic Mills anticipated or predicted the upheavals and changes of the 1960's. Theorists must critically address the dynamics of class, race, and gender inequality in order to explain and predict social change and contribute to the creation of a more egalitarian society. IMPACT OF THE COURSE Students are much more interested in the course than they were in the past when I taught a more traditional course in classical sociological theory. Although they continue to fear theory and worry about the reputation of the course as a tough course, their attendance, interest, and participation in class discussions have noticeably improved. Because I have made class, race, and gender inequality and Eurocentrism central to the course, students have readily grasped the relevance of most classical sociological theory to important contemporary issues. This does not guarantee that they will read the assigned 27 materials or speak up in class, but it does make a substantial difference. Students know that the course is relevant to their concerns. They do not ask why they have to learn about Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Spencer, Pareto, etc. Students have also improved their ability to apply a critical perspective to sociological theory. They cannot get by in the course by trying to memorize and recite material, and they cannot reject theories without explaining concretely what is wrong with them. They have therefore demonstrated considerable improvement in critical thinking and writing. Furthermore, students have been compelled to give serious attention to four interrelated kinds of social inequality. Some students have previously explained everything in terms of race, in terms of "black and white." A few students have resisted the infusion of class and gender into their theoretical perspectives, even to the point of simply tuning out some of the material in their readings and in my lectures. I have tried to utilize this "tuning out" process as a learning opportunity. For example, this past semester I tested students on a chapter from Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Rodney devoted most of this chapter to describing the stratified feudal, semi-feudal, and proto-capitalist states and empires that existed in many parts of Africa prior to contact with Europeans. Many students nevertheless wrote in their exam essays that there was no stratification in African societies until the Europeans came and destroyed African communalism. During the class discussion I initiated when I returned their exams, a few 28 students stated that they simply "knew" from what they had "heard" before taking this course that there was no inequality in African societies until "the white man" came. We debated whether an Afrocentric or nationalist ideology can lead Black students to disregard certain information, much as racist ideology can lead whites to disregard information about American society. The students who have completed the classical sociological theory course in the fall of their junior year demonstrate an ability to apply their theoretical insights in the required senior thesis that all majors write during the fall of their senior year. As an instructor who has supervised many of these students in their senior thesis work for many years, I have directly observed how students have made the connection between theory and research and developed a theoretical framework for their thesis. Those of our majors who have gone on to graduate programs in sociology have reported that they felt confident and knowledgeable in graduate theory courses. Their ability to make a critical analysis of sociological theories caused them to stand out from their peers in many situations. I would also like to offer a few reflections on how my efforts to restructure this theory course have affected me. I have gained new insights and new knowledge that I have been able to carry over into every sociology course I teach. Energized with fresh information and perspectives, I look forward to class meetings with greater anticipation and exhilaration. Because I have discovered so many new ideas, I have been stimulated to reread, to rethink, to revise, to reconsider many things I have 29 "known" for a long time. At a time when faculty morale is constantly assaulted by overwork, job insecurity, and other problems too numerous and too familiar to mention, my experience in classical sociological theory has helped to keep me from becoming tired and cynical and has sometimes enabled me to help colleagues who are trying to transform their courses and become more effective teachers.