For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.
Question: What is the "current macroeconomic situation" in the U.S.(e.g. is the U.S. economy currently concerned about unemployment, inflation, recession, etc.)? What fiscal policies and monetary policies would be appropriate at this time?1. Write your individual answers to the questions listed above together in essay format (minimum of 300 words combined in APA style), using correct economic terms covered in the discussions. If you only write 300 words, you probably won't be able to fully answer the questions. Use the APA Template in Doc Sharing as a guide. You will also find the grading rubric for this assignment in Sharing.2. Key concepts to include in your paper--data trends on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, expansionary fiscal policy tools, FOMC, easy money policy tools, and other terms from this class.3. You must use at least one article. Note: The textbook is not an article and cannot be the only source for the assignments. Use the DeVry Library as a resource for finding your references.
Question: What is the "current macroeconomic situation" in the U.S. (e.g. is the U.S. economy currently concerned about unemployment, inflation, recession, etc.)? What fiscal policies and monetary policies would be appropriate at this time? 1. Write your individual answers to the questions listed above together in essay format (minumum of 300 words combined in APA style), using correct economic terms covered in the discussions. If you only write 300 words, you probably won't be able to fully answer the questions. Use the APA Template in Doc Sharing as a guide. You will also find the grading rubric for this assignment in Doc Sharing. 2. Key concepts to include in your paper--data trends on unemployment, inflation, GDP growth, expansionary fiscal policy tools, FOMC, easy money policy tools and other terms from this class. 3. You must use at least one article. Note: The textbook is not an article and cannot be the only source for the assignments. Use the DeVry Library as a resource for finding your references.
Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.
ABSTRACT Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights. This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory: neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations, symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology, is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class, and gender. INTRODUCTION The term âfeminist theoryâ is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies, and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and
various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the exact meaning of the word âfeminist,â which makes it difficult to distinguish with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons 1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that is specifically âfeminist.â Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works. To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as âwomencenteredâ (e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway 1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.
Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward & Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the disciplineâs theoretical discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES Much of the literature that is labeled âfeminist theoryâ consists of epistemology and epistemological critiques of âmalestreamâ sociology. Its foundations reflect several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marxâs and Mannheimâs discussions of ideology, Foucaultâs work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology (or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do not agree with this perspective. Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as mainstream, âmasculinist,â âobjectivist,â and âpositivistâ social science, and develop a âfeministâ alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979, 1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where Smith focuses on developing a âwomanâs standpoint,â Collinsâ work is directed at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching, gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a âmasculineâ form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities for/commitments to interpersonal relationships. Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and transhistorical is termed âessentialism,â a view that has substantial currency among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own (e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes. Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships, while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles). Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena. Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics to women and menâcognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioralânot only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.