Class Notes (836,296)
Canada (509,762)
Sociology (3,253)
SOC203H1 (77)
Lecture

Feb 4 2013 lec .doc

5 Pages
103 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Sociology
Course
SOC203H1
Professor
jackveulgers
Semester
Winter

Description
Feb 4 2013 Engels on gender Inequality : 1. Gender Inequality in Canada Today 2. Engels (origins of the family, private property and the sate): . the centrality of production and reproduction . gender under primitive communism . private property and gender inequality . socialism and gender relations: the claim 3. Critical Comments:  A sociological phenomenon  A historical phenomenon  The meaning of property  Politics matter  Gender equality and capitalism - test next week t/f(40) and mc 1. simple societies where there is not a surplus produced where they have agriculture they are not distributed equally . 2. the claim is that with the transition to normal society gender inequality would resolve with the institution 3. the work of Engels is important because it treats relations between men and women when it comes to power not treated as biological or psychological. If they were rooted in biology than we would see, gender inequality is inevitable and psychological than hard to change social relations. In the end gender inequality is a result of social relations and not biological or psychological. Take an example of being pregnant we know that it is discomfort and that is a biological that men will never know, but since men can’t understand it should we not include women for it? No but societies sometimes place regulation where they penalize women, or child rearing in societies where they are penalized since they have the burden to raise children. - Historical phenomenon – we noe there is a gender gap in some societies and others are smaller but it cant be discussed in biology rather historical. - The meaning of property – the theory claims that men in societies that made the transition to hoarding want to know who they are transmitting it too. Engels makes a point that men should be aware of transmitting it to their heirs usually male, but why not their female heir? Alternatively, why not their neighbor? It would be better if it was shared for a community. What Engle’s saying is that men passing onto their heir is a cultural assumption - Politics matter- soviet union when they stopped private property and than we would think that regime would be good at getting rid of gender inequality and in fact there was greater gender inequality, but in the 1930s the regime decided the population was too low and they anted to increase fertility and they wanted women to turn into traditional roles wanting women to be feminine and taking pride in being mothers. It may be that where you have great difference in private property you have difference in men and women - Changes in state policy made a difference - Gender equality capitalism- thinks of Canada having capitalism in half century and we know there has been no change in gender equality and there has been no known difference in the Canadian economy. - Critical comments- Engels may have did us a favour saying that gender inequality is not natural thus taking place in different time. But he is missing politics, and yes we may have to take an economic approach but it is not sufficient where we have to take state policies into account to look at in with ownership of property Simmel’s Sociology of Power: p. 139-166 A. thematic key : cohesion vs division - Within the individual - Within societies horizontal relation - Within societies vertical relation B. - critical observation: - Simmels brilliance - Mythological individualism - Formal sociology - Power as negotiation C. Implications: a contradictory liberalism - Political struggle vain - Individuality supreme - Freedom in the mind not society (a dictorship that fosters good education might be acceptable) In Germany by the end of 1950s someone that was a sociologists was a socialist and 1969s sociology was associated with radicals and France brought workers into a standstill so sociology in the 1960s was a radical Marxist system - a Marxist sociology would have been uneasy with simmel - simmel describes it as a question of negotiation and Marxist would say this portrait takes the blood out of domination where a lot of people have domination and that kind of passion is not in simmel A. Imagine a village where everyone know everyone where they do everything together makes a lot of social monitoring and pressure of performing across a day but in a modern society we are in a classroom like today we are more passive but in a third year a smaller class we have more interactions with the TA and students. In our modern world even our smaller worlds are discrete so unlikely you will see someone you know in your fitness class. He makes a claim in a small scale society the pressure of society will channel us into consistency everyday unlike us today where we are in a class, in our family, which shows that we respond differently in each so think of responding to a joke in each of these scenarios. Simmel says we play different roles moving in each circle but doesn’t this create new challenges for a person in terms of integrity where nothing is whole or complete. As we change our demeanors where is out unity? A second sense is that morally upstanding, where in our society someone who is two faced is something without integrity. But what about us? So it is not a question of being poor dispersed but a question of having a moral code, so superficially we think of modern society would be liberating but in fact modern society presents us with new challenges when it comes with our identity, a challenge with who I am and what are my standards? Is this a question of balance? - It is important to maintain cohesion than division in a society - It is better to pull a group together than have a outside enemy - Horizontal relations- depending on circumstances people can be disunited or in face of enemy they can pull together - Vertical- social relation between people who are relatively unequal and simmel by definition talks about division since people are apart in social hierarchy but talks about cohesion meaning ways people can get along like negotiation. He is referring to truce between different people - Simmel is saying cohesion and division is always present an if we miss one we are missing the view of reality - Raymond amen- he says that simmel has many admirers and few deceitful- prof is saying it is much hard in sociology to classify certain sociologists as new Marxist. In social networks people look at simmel but he has few admirers and does not offer a system - In sociology a realist not political science way but a sociologist believes that supra individual phenomenon have properties independent of their constitute parts – how did Durkheim make this case In study of suicide? He wanted to explain suicide the supra is the suicide rate he is interested in the variation of suicide rates in races and societies and looks at individuals in membership groups like protestant. Example we have water that has certain properties like help life take fire out, thirst now think of the parts it has O2 and would you use that on fire? But it is the coming toget
More Less

Related notes for SOC203H1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit