Thank you very much 🌹🌹🌹 Marxism: based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The most famous philosophers of this term are Judith Butler, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Zizek and Axel Honneth. Critical Theory: Founding from the Frankfurt school Philosophers like Max Horkheimer. Symbolic interaction: Founders Herbert Blumer and George H. Mead. Feminist Theory: based on the political feminist movement, the most famous anthropologist in this term was Edwin Ardner an anthropological sociologist. Intersectional Analysis: Founder Kimberle Williams Crenshaw
It would be super helpful if you could do a video to go through the theories chronologically. I guess it would make a lot more sense of how the theories interact with one another.
Thanks, Shuwen Liu. A chronological discussion of the intellectual history of anthropology would actually be a great video! I'm going to add that to the list and see if we can fit it in in the second half of the year. I'm imagining a kind of branching tree of theories that we can scroll through to help illustrate the family resemblances between different concepts over time. It's something I'll give some serious thought. Thanks for watching! 🍻
Man, this channel is a gem! As for my favorite theories, I have to say I'm quite torn. As a lover of sciences and math, my instinctive response would be Structuralism or Functionalism (or basically any positivist pre-reflexive turn theoretical framework). There's something hopeful and optimistic in those texts, like it would actually be possible to understand human nature on a deep level and express it with elegant pseudo-mathematical formulas. So, as long as I can suspend disbelief, those early contributions are the best. That being said, living in the present I totally agree with you on putting intersectional analysis first place, especially when it is applied as a tool for interdisciplinary discourse. In today's world it has immense potential, although - in my post-BA very humble opinion - it would benefit from a light sprinkle of positivist optimism.
Thanks for posting, Spacefaring! It's funny that you mention the optimism of movements like Structuralism and Functionalism. I think you're probably right. There *is* something optimistic in the positivist hope of finding quasi-mathematical answers to apparently chaotic and random social phenomena. With your channel's background in mind, I think of someone like Asimov and Foundation's essentially structuralist Psychohistory -- this deeply flawed, but ultimately optimistic and humanist desire to find a shared and predictable mathematics underlying social development and change. It's actually a very romantic idea in some ways. My inner sci-fi nerd loves and shares that sentiment... but that conflicts constantly with my inner social science nerd who knows better!
Hey Kyle, thanks so much. Really glad to hear that it's been useful. We're going to get started again with regular uploads at the end of the month, so there's more on the way :) Best of luck!
I use the Ardeners in my lecturing too, quite a bit. But I do mean "the Ardeners". I find few elements of social theory quite so ironic as the way Shirley Ardener has been pointedly erased from discussions of muted group theory. Almost as though her contribution to a group discussion on gender were somehow... muted.
Great question, Harijs. Thanks for posting. If memory serves, I left out major criticisms from critical theory, feminist theory, and intersectionality... and it’s certainly not that there hasn’t been plenty of criticism of each! That’s something I should have addressed briefly in the conclusion! >.< In short, there are two reasons for the omissions. Speaking about critical theory and feminist theory specifically, there are basically two separate bodies of criticism - the first being political/polemical and the other being academic (which is heterogenous, having evolved differently in different academic fields). Both are important to understand in their own way and each constitutes an enormous subject. So I felt that diving into traditions of criticism towards the end of the video might have taken my discussion too far off topic. Looking back it does make it seem as though there is no coherent criticism to mention, which is far from the truth! I mean, some of the most coherent and scathing criticism of feminist theory comes, funnily enough, from within feminist theory itself. That brings me to the second point, which is that I am planning longer-form videos on some of these topics for the second half of 2022. That should give me the time and space to discuss criticism in more detail than would have been possible here. And these are such rich topics that they deserve plenty of space to breathe. I hope that helps. Thanks for watching!
Hey Paolo! Thanks for posting. A bookshelf tour is an awesome idea! I'll see if I can incorporate that into the Q&A that I want to do at 5k subs. Thanks!
I have a question about using one of these theory as a theoretical frame work for a thesis; would it be possible to use the main part of the theory, still you show some reservations about some of the ideas used in this theory? thanks a lot
Hey Sherif! Thanks for posting. Obviously I don't have all the context I would need to answer authoritatively here (and I tend not to go into too, too much detail in comments). So take this with a grain of salt; but the short answer is that it's absolutely fine to adopt a theoretical lens that you know has certain flaws or lacunae -- particularly if you are open about the fact that there are other, often equally valuable analytical lenses that you could apply in your work. It's not uncommon, for example, to offer a functionalist analysis of an event while acknowledging that wider (and more critical) readings are also valid. Many of these theoretical approaches in the social sciences are not mutually exclusive and can absolutely co-exist parallel to one another in the same study or be combined to deepen the analytical scope of your work. It's also very often important in high-level Undergrad and MA work to show that, were you able to expand the scope of your research in the future, you would be interested in applying other readings to your data and/or more fully exploring the relative limitations of your own theoretical approach. Good luck!
Fantastic video, thanks. Learned a lot, was really fascinated by Pedagogy of the Oppressed. I’m curious why you didn’t include postmodernism on your list, although with poststructuralism you include postmodern thinkers like Foucault and Derrida. It seems like modern critical theories, intersectionality, and queer theory borrow ideas from postmodernism. Not saying it’s an oversight at all, just wondering if you considered adding postmodernism to the list or covered it by the theories you mentioned.
Thanks for posting, MVR. Freire was an absolute beast in his time and I highly recommend giving his work a look if you haven't done in the past. To be honest, _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_ is far from perfect -- it contains, I think, a problematic reading and implementation of Marxist class analysis, for example. In my experience, though, despite some of its problems, Pedagogy is often a transformative piece of work for people frustrated with both high-level academia and childhood education. I may answer the Postmodernism question in a Q&A, if that's alright. In short, though, using my (totally haphazard) criteria for the episode, I felt that it was too heterogeneous in the way that it emerged in various social scientific disciplines and would be better served being referenced as a broader, kind of 'umbrella' influence on many of the theoretical movements I discuss in Part Two. Also, admittedly, when I was putting the top ten together, I felt that I could hit on some of Postmodernism's themes in the section on Poststructuralism and might, then, be able to sneak in something less well known, like symbolic interactionism or cultural materialism. Still, it *IS* conspicuous in its absence! I think that I should have at least discussed it briefly in the honorable mentions. With that in mind, I think that I'll do an Off the Shelf on Postmodernism and social science (which is a really fun and diverse topic -- and something close to my heart). That will give me a bit more space to discuss the movement than I would have had in this last episode. Thanks, MVR!
Could you explain me what the difference between a "macro-oriented method of analysis" and a "theory" is? since, to my mind, if funcionalism and structuralism are (according to you) macro-oriented methods of analysis, then all of the theories you included in your list are as well. I don´t see any epistemological difference between them.
Yes, good point. The phrase 'structural-functional' requires interpretation. The first term has the priority as it refers to structures. Structures are fixed ordered relationships which are typically linguistic or symbolic. Social structures include ice, gender, sex, class, age and norms or the law. Institutional structures include the disciplines like art, science, literature, religion, etc. Systems are also structures like capitalism, law enforcement or the legal system, technology production and implementation, and communications from face-to-face interactions to leadership, among other systems. One overlooked structure is kinship which is usually ignored or taken for granted or tacit and implicit but is the underling mode of production of labor for the other systems and structures. Structuralism and functional are both "macro" because they indicate the necessity of cooperation and coordination of the society and and its cultures. Functionalism justifies structures by indicating how each structure is necessary to meet certain needs of the system; functionalism is about the needs of the system and its members. Structuralism began with Durkheim and consists of certain assumptions such as the necessity of crime! Marxist sociologists contest this notion and claim that crime is not necessary. Habermas discusses in "Theory and Practice" the issue of where the line of the law exists and the when crossing that line is actually permissible. Functionalism, think William James and pragmatism, however considers that poverty, inequality, hierarchy, gender differentiation and class divisions are necessary for the health of society. Functional purists claim that pollution, vice and crime are necessary to make the system work. Because these views contain so many contested issues, it was placed last on the list of social theories because it is a jumping off place, especially after WWII when developments in social theory exploded. Functionalism justifies the social forms and structures like class, gender, race and authority hierarchies whereas Critical Theory challenges the legitimacy of functionalism.
Got caught up in the idea there are 10 "most" important theories in social science, and watched both part I and II, and the presentation was excellent and rational. I did find it a bit odd to listen to the strong marxism thread through the 10 theories given the massive failure of Marxism in the real world (the millions of people killed and abused by communism). After all, it is very hard for "the people" to "own" the means of production when that is interpreted as having the state own these means, and have the state run by a small group of people. Is there a social science theory that explains why such well intended economic models have so frequently failed? Why such models have uniformly delivered less than capitalist systems for freedom, environment, technology, and human rights? And the criticism of Marxism didn't even point out the failure in communism in organizing society (despite the nod to political vs social marxism, though I'm not sure Marx recognized two versions). Further, the failure of Marx to predict the actual wealth that capitalism delivered to the poor world wide. That capitalism resulted in no ever growing pain of the oppressed driving them to inevitably to overthrow the oppressors. Capitalism as a theory in social science wasn't mentioned, but it isn't just an economic model but a social organizational force, and is the counter of theory of the top social theories covered in the video. Given the heavy marxist slant of the theories provided, I wonder what the top 10 social theories in opposition to marxism might be? As an engineer, I am not really knowledgeable enough to articulate the theoretical work around capitalism to say.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Paul Snow. And the question about the persistence and prevalence of aspects of Marxist theory is *fantastic* ! It's a bit too much tackle in a comment response, but I'm absolutely going to incorporate this into my next Q&A and might consider dedicating a whole video to your comment. Off the top of my head, I have a few hunches, but I'd love to hit the books a bit to build a more comprehensive response. In both cases, if it's alright, I'll give you a little shout out in the video response(s). Thanks for watching!
@@ArmchairAcademics Let me say I was pleasantly surprised to read a positive response to my question. After all, it could be taken as an attack. I do comment here and there on videos, and when I do comment on videos that make claims around radical feminism or CRT or Intersectional theory etc. my comments tend to be taken as attacks. After watching your videos and commenting, I then did a bit of Internet research, and have found a tiny bit of sociology research that didn't revolve around marxism, but not all that much. Capitalism as a term came into its own with Marx (even if it is tied to Adam Smith). It would seem the term was preferred over arguing against individual freedom and private property. How could Marx challenge Freedom and property rights? Well, call it capitalism. Marx sought the socialization of the means of production, and Critical Theories and its children and relatives all seek a distribution of equity or equality... Forgive the lack of precision but more or less. Consider the blockchain and the crypto space also seeks to distribute the control of finance and monetary systems. Here the whole goal is to strip control of information and money from centralized parties like government and companies. But leftists (mostly marxist) reject such movements. In fact, given that the Marxist opponent is individual liberty and autonomy, marxism must necessarily avoid distributing control to actual people, because that will not yield absolute equity. Because some will get more control than others. It turns out, we can't even program equity in a software system totally under the control of programmers. I know, I have been thinking about, working on, and even building protocols since 2013. Spreading out control to the masses may very well be impossible. Well, a bit much for a reply. Thanks very much for your attention.
What has happened to many of the major fields is that there is a given amount of approved information available for general consumption and gone over by the given experts. Whether these experts know all of the facts themselves is a matter of debate but to take Symbolic Interactionism as an example : This category looks to build on Social Action Theory of the first video, that one using the objective approach and then following thru to the subjective gone over in the Symbolic Interactionism here. Does this look like everything is covered well - been there done that? Well to take Social Action Theory : this is gone over the more comprehensive of the two, but could still use an update, at least, that could go into, for example, why in this day and age of instant and unqualified communication is there still very little of what is termed 'real change' as a consequence? A broader look, especially in light of Marxist contributions to the field, looks to be needed in order to evaluate the effect of entrenched systems. As for the Symbolic Interactionism of this video : the traits and tendencies of race and family relations also figure in prominently in many individuals behavior and is this to be sacrificed for a 'neat and innocuous study'? A well-rounded and meaningful study should not be afraid of the full range and scope of all angles of consideration even if this is not traditionally part of the curriculum in question. As I have hinted at in the beginning of my comment, this does not mean that these measures are not taken at all somewhere in the world by who knows who, it just means that the public is most often not at the table when they are. I have been known to dabble in activism, so pardon me if these points seem a bit hammered or uncomfortable.
Re. ,25:35 .... You forgot to mention a " Mysandry " ...in your list. ... Is this ommition An accident... .... or you belive that it doesn't exist , please ?
Thanks for posting. It's neither an omission nor an accident. There are many, many forms of discrimination that we could add in addition to misandry and the handful of things I mention around 25:35. When I say "forms of discrimination like a, b, c, and d" I am gesturing at the fact that there are many other items that could be included on that list, but going through every single one of them might not be a good use of our time here.
We want to hear from you, as well! What theories would be on *your* top ten list?
Corrections:
20:11 -- "embeddedness" is spelled with a double d.
Thank you very much 🌹🌹🌹
Marxism: based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The most famous philosophers of this term are Judith Butler, Alain Badiou, Slavoj Zizek and Axel Honneth.
Critical Theory: Founding from the Frankfurt school Philosophers like Max Horkheimer.
Symbolic interaction: Founders Herbert Blumer and George H. Mead.
Feminist Theory: based on the political feminist movement, the most famous anthropologist in this term was Edwin Ardner an anthropological sociologist.
Intersectional Analysis: Founder Kimberle Williams Crenshaw
It would be super helpful if you could do a video to go through the theories chronologically. I guess it would make a lot more sense of how the theories interact with one another.
Thanks, Shuwen Liu. A chronological discussion of the intellectual history of anthropology would actually be a great video! I'm going to add that to the list and see if we can fit it in in the second half of the year. I'm imagining a kind of branching tree of theories that we can scroll through to help illustrate the family resemblances between different concepts over time. It's something I'll give some serious thought. Thanks for watching! 🍻
@@ArmchairAcademics Looking forward!
Man, this channel is a gem!
As for my favorite theories, I have to say I'm quite torn. As a lover of sciences and math, my instinctive response would be Structuralism or Functionalism (or basically any positivist pre-reflexive turn theoretical framework). There's something hopeful and optimistic in those texts, like it would actually be possible to understand human nature on a deep level and express it with elegant pseudo-mathematical formulas. So, as long as I can suspend disbelief, those early contributions are the best.
That being said, living in the present I totally agree with you on putting intersectional analysis first place, especially when it is applied as a tool for interdisciplinary discourse. In today's world it has immense potential, although - in my post-BA very humble opinion - it would benefit from a light sprinkle of positivist optimism.
Thanks for posting, Spacefaring! It's funny that you mention the optimism of movements like Structuralism and Functionalism. I think you're probably right. There *is* something optimistic in the positivist hope of finding quasi-mathematical answers to apparently chaotic and random social phenomena. With your channel's background in mind, I think of someone like Asimov and Foundation's essentially structuralist Psychohistory -- this deeply flawed, but ultimately optimistic and humanist desire to find a shared and predictable mathematics underlying social development and change. It's actually a very romantic idea in some ways. My inner sci-fi nerd loves and shares that sentiment... but that conflicts constantly with my inner social science nerd who knows better!
Thank you so much for this. I'm currently a freshman Social Studies student and your content like this helps me a lot.
Hey Kyle, thanks so much. Really glad to hear that it's been useful. We're going to get started again with regular uploads at the end of the month, so there's more on the way :) Best of luck!
I use the Ardeners in my lecturing too, quite a bit. But I do mean "the Ardeners". I find few elements of social theory quite so ironic as the way Shirley Ardener has been pointedly erased from discussions of muted group theory. Almost as though her contribution to a group discussion on gender were somehow... muted.
Great video. But why You didn''t mention any criticisms on some occasions?
Great question, Harijs. Thanks for posting. If memory serves, I left out major criticisms from critical theory, feminist theory, and intersectionality... and it’s certainly not that there hasn’t been plenty of criticism of each! That’s something I should have addressed briefly in the conclusion! >.<
In short, there are two reasons for the omissions.
Speaking about critical theory and feminist theory specifically, there are basically two separate bodies of criticism - the first being political/polemical and the other being academic (which is heterogenous, having evolved differently in different academic fields). Both are important to understand in their own way and each constitutes an enormous subject. So I felt that diving into traditions of criticism towards the end of the video might have taken my discussion too far off topic. Looking back it does make it seem as though there is no coherent criticism to mention, which is far from the truth! I mean, some of the most coherent and scathing criticism of feminist theory comes, funnily enough, from within feminist theory itself.
That brings me to the second point, which is that I am planning longer-form videos on some of these topics for the second half of 2022. That should give me the time and space to discuss criticism in more detail than would have been possible here. And these are such rich topics that they deserve plenty of space to breathe.
I hope that helps. Thanks for watching!
I love your content! When are we getting a bookshelf tour?
Hey Paolo! Thanks for posting. A bookshelf tour is an awesome idea! I'll see if I can incorporate that into the Q&A that I want to do at 5k subs. Thanks!
I have a question about using one of these theory as a theoretical frame work for a thesis; would it be possible to use the main part of the theory, still you show some reservations about some of the ideas used in this theory? thanks a lot
Hey Sherif! Thanks for posting. Obviously I don't have all the context I would need to answer authoritatively here (and I tend not to go into too, too much detail in comments). So take this with a grain of salt; but the short answer is that it's absolutely fine to adopt a theoretical lens that you know has certain flaws or lacunae -- particularly if you are open about the fact that there are other, often equally valuable analytical lenses that you could apply in your work. It's not uncommon, for example, to offer a functionalist analysis of an event while acknowledging that wider (and more critical) readings are also valid. Many of these theoretical approaches in the social sciences are not mutually exclusive and can absolutely co-exist parallel to one another in the same study or be combined to deepen the analytical scope of your work.
It's also very often important in high-level Undergrad and MA work to show that, were you able to expand the scope of your research in the future, you would be interested in applying other readings to your data and/or more fully exploring the relative limitations of your own theoretical approach. Good luck!
Fantastic video, thanks. Learned a lot, was really fascinated by Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
I’m curious why you didn’t include postmodernism on your list, although with poststructuralism you include postmodern thinkers like Foucault and Derrida. It seems like modern critical theories, intersectionality, and queer theory borrow ideas from postmodernism. Not saying it’s an oversight at all, just wondering if you considered adding postmodernism to the list or covered it by the theories you mentioned.
Thanks for posting, MVR. Freire was an absolute beast in his time and I highly recommend giving his work a look if you haven't done in the past. To be honest, _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_ is far from perfect -- it contains, I think, a problematic reading and implementation of Marxist class analysis, for example. In my experience, though, despite some of its problems, Pedagogy is often a transformative piece of work for people frustrated with both high-level academia and childhood education.
I may answer the Postmodernism question in a Q&A, if that's alright. In short, though, using my (totally haphazard) criteria for the episode, I felt that it was too heterogeneous in the way that it emerged in various social scientific disciplines and would be better served being referenced as a broader, kind of 'umbrella' influence on many of the theoretical movements I discuss in Part Two. Also, admittedly, when I was putting the top ten together, I felt that I could hit on some of Postmodernism's themes in the section on Poststructuralism and might, then, be able to sneak in something less well known, like symbolic interactionism or cultural materialism.
Still, it *IS* conspicuous in its absence! I think that I should have at least discussed it briefly in the honorable mentions. With that in mind, I think that I'll do an Off the Shelf on Postmodernism and social science (which is a really fun and diverse topic -- and something close to my heart). That will give me a bit more space to discuss the movement than I would have had in this last episode. Thanks, MVR!
Could you explain me what the difference between a "macro-oriented method of analysis" and a "theory" is? since, to my mind, if funcionalism and structuralism are (according to you) macro-oriented methods of analysis, then all of the theories you included in your list are as well. I don´t see any epistemological difference between them.
Yes, good point. The phrase 'structural-functional' requires interpretation. The first term has the priority as it refers to structures. Structures are fixed ordered relationships which are typically linguistic or symbolic. Social structures include ice, gender, sex, class, age and norms or the law. Institutional structures include the disciplines like art, science, literature, religion, etc. Systems are also structures like capitalism, law enforcement or the legal system, technology production and implementation, and communications from face-to-face interactions to leadership, among other systems. One overlooked structure is kinship which is usually ignored or taken for granted or tacit and implicit but is the underling mode of production of labor for the other systems and structures.
Structuralism and functional are both "macro" because they indicate the necessity of cooperation and coordination of the society and and its cultures. Functionalism justifies structures by indicating how each structure is necessary to meet certain needs of the system; functionalism is about the needs of the system and its members.
Structuralism began with Durkheim and consists of certain assumptions such as the necessity of crime! Marxist sociologists contest this notion and claim that crime is not necessary. Habermas discusses in "Theory and Practice" the issue of where the line of the law exists and the when crossing that line is actually permissible. Functionalism, think William James and pragmatism, however considers that poverty, inequality, hierarchy, gender differentiation and class divisions are necessary for the health of society. Functional purists claim that pollution, vice and crime are necessary to make the system work.
Because these views contain so many contested issues, it was placed last on the list of social theories because it is a jumping off place, especially after WWII when developments in social theory exploded. Functionalism justifies the social forms and structures like class, gender, race and authority hierarchies whereas Critical Theory challenges the legitimacy of functionalism.
thank you, the video is very helpful!
Thanks Егор! Very glad you found it helpful.
Why not include evolutionism and the theories before it too though related with theological aspects?
Awesome content- brief and lucid!
Thanks so much, Khem!
Drop a comment and let us know why?
Isn't it obvious?
This is AMAZING!
Excellent Thank you so much!!!!
Very glad you found it helpful! We'll be back at the end of the month with a bunch of new content so check back soon!
merci je suis sure cela tous infos sont tres valeurs!
Got caught up in the idea there are 10 "most" important theories in social science, and watched both part I and II, and the presentation was excellent and rational.
I did find it a bit odd to listen to the strong marxism thread through the 10 theories given the massive failure of Marxism in the real world (the millions of people killed and abused by communism). After all, it is very hard for "the people" to "own" the means of production when that is interpreted as having the state own these means, and have the state run by a small group of people. Is there a social science theory that explains why such well intended economic models have so frequently failed? Why such models have uniformly delivered less than capitalist systems for freedom, environment, technology, and human rights?
And the criticism of Marxism didn't even point out the failure in communism in organizing society (despite the nod to political vs social marxism, though I'm not sure Marx recognized two versions). Further, the failure of Marx to predict the actual wealth that capitalism delivered to the poor world wide. That capitalism resulted in no ever growing pain of the oppressed driving them to inevitably to overthrow the oppressors.
Capitalism as a theory in social science wasn't mentioned, but it isn't just an economic model but a social organizational force, and is the counter of theory of the top social theories covered in the video.
Given the heavy marxist slant of the theories provided, I wonder what the top 10 social theories in opposition to marxism might be? As an engineer, I am not really knowledgeable enough to articulate the theoretical work around capitalism to say.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Paul Snow. And the question about the persistence and prevalence of aspects of Marxist theory is *fantastic* ! It's a bit too much tackle in a comment response, but I'm absolutely going to incorporate this into my next Q&A and might consider dedicating a whole video to your comment. Off the top of my head, I have a few hunches, but I'd love to hit the books a bit to build a more comprehensive response. In both cases, if it's alright, I'll give you a little shout out in the video response(s). Thanks for watching!
@@ArmchairAcademics Let me say I was pleasantly surprised to read a positive response to my question. After all, it could be taken as an attack. I do comment here and there on videos, and when I do comment on videos that make claims around radical feminism or CRT or Intersectional theory etc. my comments tend to be taken as attacks.
After watching your videos and commenting, I then did a bit of Internet research, and have found a tiny bit of sociology research that didn't revolve around marxism, but not all that much.
Capitalism as a term came into its own with Marx (even if it is tied to Adam Smith). It would seem the term was preferred over arguing against individual freedom and private property. How could Marx challenge Freedom and property rights? Well, call it capitalism.
Marx sought the socialization of the means of production, and Critical Theories and its children and relatives all seek a distribution of equity or equality... Forgive the lack of precision but more or less.
Consider the blockchain and the crypto space also seeks to distribute the control of finance and monetary systems. Here the whole goal is to strip control of information and money from centralized parties like government and companies. But leftists (mostly marxist) reject such movements. In fact, given that the Marxist opponent is individual liberty and autonomy, marxism must necessarily avoid distributing control to actual people, because that will not yield absolute equity. Because some will get more control than others.
It turns out, we can't even program equity in a software system totally under the control of programmers. I know, I have been thinking about, working on, and even building protocols since 2013. Spreading out control to the masses may very well be impossible.
Well, a bit much for a reply. Thanks very much for your attention.
I wish I found your channel while I was going through my bachelors
Thrilled to hear that the videos are helpful. Thanks for watching!
What has happened to many of the major fields is that there is a given amount of approved information available for general consumption and gone over by the given experts. Whether these experts know all of the facts themselves is a matter of debate but to take Symbolic Interactionism as an example : This category looks to build on Social Action Theory of the first video, that one using the objective approach and then following thru to the subjective gone over in the Symbolic Interactionism here. Does this look like everything is covered well - been there done that? Well to take Social Action Theory : this is gone over the more comprehensive of the two, but could still use an update, at least, that could go into, for example, why in this day and age of instant and unqualified communication is there still very little of what is termed 'real change' as a consequence? A broader look, especially in light of Marxist contributions to the field, looks to be needed in order to evaluate the effect of entrenched systems. As for the Symbolic Interactionism of this video : the traits and tendencies of race and family relations also figure in prominently in many individuals behavior and is this to be sacrificed for a 'neat and innocuous study'? A well-rounded and meaningful study should not be afraid of the full range and scope of all angles of consideration even if this is not traditionally part of the curriculum in question. As I have hinted at in the beginning of my comment, this does not mean that these measures are not taken at all somewhere in the world by who knows who, it just means that the public is most often not at the table when they are. I have been known to dabble in activism, so pardon me if these points seem a bit hammered or uncomfortable.
Thank you this information was useful
Really glad you found it helpful, Peggy. Thanks!
Re. ,25:35 ....
You forgot to mention
a " Mysandry "
...in your list.
... Is this ommition
An accident...
.... or you belive that it doesn't exist , please ?
Thanks for posting. It's neither an omission nor an accident. There are many, many forms of discrimination that we could add in addition to misandry and the handful of things I mention around 25:35. When I say "forms of discrimination like a, b, c, and d" I am gesturing at the fact that there are many other items that could be included on that list, but going through every single one of them might not be a good use of our time here.
;)