Class Notes (839,394)
Canada (511,324)
Sociology (3,266)
SOC483Y1 (20)
Lecture 16

Lecture 16 Feb 8.docx

5 Pages

Course Code
Vanina Leschziner

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 5 pages of the document.
SOC483Y1 – Lecture 16 Feb 8, 2012 Reading: - Rick Mayes and Allan Horwitz, “DSM-III and the Revolution in the Classification of Mental Illness,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 41 (2005): 249-267. Reading: - Karen Cerulo, “Institutionalizing Right, Wrong, and Undecided,” chapter 4 in Deciphering Violence (Routledge, 1998), pp. 77-110. Cerulo – Order related to Mary Douglas, Levi-Strauss (classification system) and Geertz (first order) Equate to Swidler- showing same tool kit method- believes she may thus assert invoking certain cultural tools- invoked in settled environments – why in settled times though? Wuthnow piggy back – determined by society’s moral order – moral stability and dominating traditional tools Problems with both models though when we use Cerulo Swidler’s falls apart when war times – conventional sequence still follow Wuthnow fall into problems when morality divided Where do they break with tradition? – when unsettled and morally inconsistent when traditional narrative may be broken RICK MAYES – ALLAN HORWITZ – DSM - Only meaningful with individual analysis- micro - Psychological disorder- failure to adapt - Everyone has mental illness (neurotic) to major psychotic - Illnesses not discrete - Each symptom connected to deep psychological process Problems overly scientific and over ambitious – some issues with past DSM - So DSM’s are concerned with classification orders - Symptom based model let pharmaceuticals target certain illnesses These readings let us revisit past readings Institutional organization – controlling on people with memos etc. confining cultural toolkits - Reason these two together because 2 contemporary sociologists working from different perspectives to give sense of the work that can be done in terms of ideas that can be used for own papers - Different subject matters and approaches - Both are professors at Rutgers = where many right about cognition - Both readings deal with institutions, classifications how we classify phenomenon within the context of institutions so of course we see constraints of institutions - What we see is certainly constraining institutions - *institutions constrain due to pressures, we need to respond to those pressures - (good for homesickness, professor exerting pressure on language efficiency) This will be good for answering talk of love by Swidler- which may help in the way we understand tool kits – it one dichotomy – that dichotomy between the individual (cultural cognition- psychological individual cultural cognition) sold response is that it is hard to separate them as it is that one has stuff on their mind alone from their own while some that are products of social structure (universal) in terms of how brains work - A lot of our cognitive make up – especially what we are concerned with is cultural and shared! – cognitive schema vs. cultural schema- interdependent happenings - Individual yet may be responding to institutions SWIDLER TALKS ABOUT THIS - What is more personal or intimate than love – romantic relationships – a lot of the schema people use to grapple with relationships (those interviewed are at a different stage) are responding in ways to institutions, they will use different narratives depending on the context, so model of Hollywood romantic relationship to be drawn on to envision future romantic relationships vs. pastors or priest with very different narrative to explain nature of love vs. counsellor influenced love – whether to stay with partner or break up = these are all institutions that introduce pressures, constraints and different tools for people to draw on and decide if person is for them or if they should leave relationship - Some institutions are more formal than others- ex. Journalistic field, psychiatry, sociology student- easier to see patterns of schema in these institutions! - Some may be conscious of writing formal sociology papers like in the way it is generic vs. unconscious just do – find code to determine conscious or unconscious - More informal: counselling, Hollywood – where we may pick up cues in a more random way as it were and not within occupation it is harder to track down what people are doing - Goals are pressures- like getting a job, PhD, famous - Those kinds of institutions which we interact with in our minds put constrains and pressures on what we do – we get some of our tools, narrative, ideas, schema, from those institutions but we are also constrained by them - For Swidler not totally unconscious or conscious – some may be more strategic than others - Institutions as rational is not really true- while some say individual irrational – this is not really true either – institutions are made by individuals in so far we are somewhat unconscious so will institutions - A lot of the work on institutions that we will read shows preciously that instituions are unconscious and that a lot of what people do (Cerulo more than the other shows this) that people in institutions do not know why they are doing it but institutions go by inertia – ex. Type of titles in sociology – people just end up doing it - Question – regarding the American g
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.