SOCI230 Social Stratification - Nielsen - Class 4 - 2 Feb 2001

Discussion questions on the functionalist approach (Kingsley Davis & Wilbert E. Moore 1945; Richard Simpson 1956; Arthur Stinchcombe 1963, 1968)

• What are Davis & Moore trying to explain and how do they explain it? (In other words, what is their main argument in a nutshell?)
• How does their description of the roles of rulers and governments resemble and/or differ from that of Marx, of elite theorists?
• What elements of Davis & Moore's theory of stratification can be viewed as teleological*? What elements are causal (or "naturalistic", using Richard Simpson's term)? (*Random House 5.: teleology: "the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization.")
• What assumptions do Davis & Moore make about human nature? How do these assumptions compare with those made by Marx?

Richard Simpson (1956)

• What weaknesses of the Davis & Moore theory does Simpson identify in his article?
• What theoretical elements, already present at least implicitly in Davis & Moore, are emphasized in Simpson's reformulation of the theory?
• How does Simpson use the concept of "product differentiation" to solve a paradox of the Davis & Moore theory?
• How successful is Simpson's modification of Davis & Moore? (In other words, in what ways does Simpson's reformulation represent theoretical progress in understanding stratification?)
• Where is the slightly risqué joke in Simpson's article?

Arthur Stinchcombe (1963, 1968)

• In "Some Empirical Consequences...", how does Stinchcome view the relationship between the theory of Davis & Moore (and other functional theories) and ordinary scientific theories?
• How would one represent the Davis & Moore theory of stratification using the formal model of a functional explanation, as presented by Stinchcombe in Constructing Social Theories (Figure 3.7 p. 89)? To what elements of Davis & Moore do the components H, S, and T of a complete functional explanation correspond? To what mechanisms invoked by Davis & Moore (or missing from their discussion) do the causal arrows in Stinchcombe's formal model correspond?
• What is the crucial category of causal links (or mechanisms) that Stinchcombe is able to specify, to interpret the teleological (and apparently non-causal) element of functional theories in causal terms, and therefore present functional explanations as a variety of causal models?
• How does Stinchcombe construct his argument that Marxism is a special kind of functional explanation?
• How does Stinchcombe view the relationship between functional explanations of social structures, and a conservative outlook?

Discussion questions on formal structural theories (Peter Blau and Joseph Schwartz 1984; Rosabeth Kanter 1977; Scott J. South, Charles M. Bonjean, William T. Markham, and Judy Corder).

• What is the central purpose of Blau & Schwartz in Cross-Cutting Social Circles?
• How do the authors distinguish a sociological theory from other types of theories?
• How is the social structure defined?
• How are "structural parameters" defined? What are the three generic forms of structural parameters?
• Is the distinction between "heterogeneity" and "inequality" purely one of level of measurement? Or does it distinguish between differentiation and stratification?
• To what extent is an individual's consciousness of his/her place in the social structure part of this theory?
• How does the approach of Blau & Schwartz fit with current sociological concerns with micro-macro linkages? With the level of analysis problem? To what extent is their analysis (and reasoning) multilevel?
• What part does social mobility play in the Blau & Schwartz theory?
• What is the theory of collective action and social movements that is adopted by Blau & Schwartz?
• Blau & Schwartz present their theory as a formal deductive system based on axioms (or assumptions), from which theorems are formally derived.  How "formally compelling" is their style of derivation, as compared, say, with other examples of formal deductive structures such as found in formal logic or mathematics?
• Generally speaking, how compelling are the empirical analyses presented by Blau & Schwartz?

• How does Kanter's central purpose compare with Blau and Schwartz'? More specifically, how consistent would the following paragraph of Kanter be with the approach of Blau and Schwartz:

Investigation of the effects of proportions on group life and social interaction appears to be fruitful both for social psychological theory and for understanding male-female interaction. It is a step toward identifying the structural and situational variables that intervene between global cultural definitions of social type and individual responses -- that shape the context for face-to face interactions among different kinds of people. Relative as well as absolute numbers can be important for social life and social relations. (P. 988)
 
• In Kanter's theoretical framework, what are the three "perceptual phenomena" associated with the proportional rarity of tokens, and the corresponding three types of "interaction dynamics" that are entailed by these perceptual phenomena (pp. 971-972)?
• How do tokens react to these "interaction dynamics"?
• What sort of evidence does Kanter use to support her theoretical scheme, and how compelling is this evidence?
• What role do Freudian concepts play in Kanter's analysis?

• What other theoretical tradition, beside the work of Blau, do South et al. contrast with Kanter's analysis of tokenism? What does that theoretical tradition say about the effect of minority size on minority-majority interactions?
• What sort of evidence do South et al. use to contrast the theoretical schemes of Kanter versus Blau/Blalock? How compelling is this evidence?
• What are their conclusions about the effects of sex distribution on intergroup contact and support?
• What would be some other tests of Blau's theory?