100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na betaling Zowel online als in PDF Je zit nergens aan vast
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
Summary Critical Thinking in Sociology €6,49
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)
  4.  
  5. Social Sciences En Politieke En Sociale Wetenschappen
  6.  
  7. Critical Thinking In Sociology

Samenvatting

Summary Critical Thinking in Sociology

1 beoordeling
 76 keer bekeken  5 keer verkocht

Very complete document with class notes and course material included Grade in first exam session: 15/20

Voorbeeld 4 van de 105  pagina's

Document informatie

  • 20 juni 2021
  • 105
  • 2018/2019
  • Samenvatting

Onderwerpen

Geschreven voor

Alle documenten voor dit vak (2)

1  beoordeling

review-writer-avatar

Door: youssefamrabdelaziz • 2 jaar geleden

Verkoper

avatar-seller
dly

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌

CRITICAL‌‌THINKING‌‌

IN‌‌SOCIOLOGY‌ ‌
2018-2019‌ ‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌
‌

SOCIAL‌‌SCIENCES‌ ‌ ‌PROF.‌‌VANDEBROECK‌ ‌
D.L.Y.‌ ‌


‌

, 1.‌‌Toward‌‌a‌‌sociology‌‌of‌‌“Critique”‌ ‌
1.1.‌‌Towards‌‌a‌‌Sociological‌‌Definition‌‌of‌‌“Critique”‌ ‌
● Tweet,‌‌Neil‌‌deGrasse‌‌Tyson:‌‌Neil‌‌deGrasse‌‌Tyson‌‌is‌‌an‌‌American‌‌astrophysicist,‌‌author,‌‌and‌‌science‌‌
communicator.‌ ‌
1.1.1.‌‌Similarity‌‌sociology‌‌and‌‌exact‌‌sciences‌ ‌
● All‌‌sciences‌‌are‌‌fundamentally‌‌about‌‌questioning‌‌and‌‌finding‌‌answer‌‌the‌‌‘why’‌‌question.‌ ‌
● This‌‌implies‌‌that…‌‌ ‌
○ there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌reason‌‌why‌‌things‌‌are‌‌the‌‌way‌‌they‌‌are‌‌(i.e.‌‌things‌‌are‌‌not‌‌random)‌ ‌
○ this‌‌reason‌‌can‌‌be‌‌discovered‌‌using‌‌the‌‌method‌‌of‌‌positive,‌‌empirical‌‌sciences‌‌(observation,‌‌
experiment,‌‌survey,‌‌analysis,‌‌etc.)‌ ‌

● Social‌‌sciences:‌‌reason‌‌why‌‌things‌‌are‌‌the‌‌way‌‌they‌‌are‌‌should‌‌be‌‌located‌‌in‌‌particular‌‌organization‌‌of‌‌human‌‌
groups‌‌(i.e.‌‌social‌‌structure)‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌classroom‌‌patterns:‌‌further‌‌from‌‌professor,‌‌more‌‌men‌‌→‌‌why?‌‌men‌‌tend‌‌to‌‌sit‌‌in‌‌the‌‌back‌‌
because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌to‌‌be‌‌independent‌‌and‌‌women‌‌sit‌‌in‌‌front‌‌because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌made‌‌to‌‌listen‌‌and‌‌
⇒
understand‌‌ ‌‌sexist‌‌bullshit,‌‌i‌‌was‌‌in‌‌the‌‌back,‌‌last‌‌row‌‌only‌‌females‌ ‌

● In‌‌modern‌‌Western‌‌societies‌‌appeals‌‌to‌‌God‌‌or‌‌religious‌‌forces‌‌increasingly‌‌rare‌‌more‌‌common‌‌to‌‌appeal‌‌to‌‌
‘nature’‌‌or‌‌‘biology’‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌“men‌‌make‌‌more‌‌money‌‌and‌‌have‌‌higher-status‌‌jobs,‌‌because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌genetically‌‌more‌‌
ambitious‌‌and‌‌hard-working”‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌“women‌‌more‌‌often‌‌work‌‌part-time‌‌because‌‌they‌‌are‌‌biologically‌‌programmed‌‌for‌‌child-rearing”‌ ‌

De-naturalization‌ ‌

● De-naturalization:‌‌core‌‌task‌‌of‌‌social‌‌sciences‌ ‌
● To‌‌show‌‌that‌‌what‌‌presents‌‌itself‌‌as‌‌natural‌‌in‌‌fact‌‌has‌‌celar‌‌social‌‌(ie.‌‌man-made-)‌‌causes‌ ‌
● Natural‌‌in‌‌double‌‌sense:‌‌ ‌
1. self-evident,‌‌normal,‌‌matter‌‌of‌‌fact‌ ‌
2. Biological,‌‌genetic,‌‌innate‌ ‌
● How?‌‌ ‌
1. History‌:‌‌uncover‌‌the‌‌genealogy‌‌of‌‌our‌‌everyday‌‌practices,‌‌show‌‌what‌‌they‌‌looked‌‌like‌‌in‌‌the‌‌past‌‌
(contrast‌‌in‌‌time)‌‌ ‌
2. Anthropology‌:‌‌compare‌‌‘our’‌‌everyday‌‌practices‌‌with‌‌those‌‌of‌‌other‌‌societies‌‌on‌‌the‌‌globe‌‌(contrast‌‌
in‌‌space)‌ ‌

Denaturalization‌‌in‌‌History‌ ‌ Denaturalization‌‌in‌‌Anthropology‌ ‌

Historicization‌‌is‌‌an‌‌important‌‌tool‌‌of‌‌denaturalization‌ ‌ Anthropologists‌‌do‌‌not‌‌rely‌‌on‌‌historicization,‌‌but‌‌use‌‌
culturalization‌‌as‌‌a‌‌means‌‌of‌‌showing‌‌the‌‌social‌‌roots‌‌of‌‌
By‌‌once‌‌again‌‌revealing‌‌the‌‌(often‌‌repressed)‌‌history‌‌of‌‌ practices‌‌and‌‌beliefs‌ ‌
certain‌‌practices‌‌and‌‌beliefs‌‌it‌‌becomes‌‌possible‌‌to‌‌show‌‌
their‌‌socially‌‌constructed‌‌character‌ ‌

1‌ ‌

, ‌


Getting‌‌outside‌ ‌

● Both‌‌history‌‌and‌‌anthropology‌‌can‌‌claim‌‌a‌‌position‌‌‘outside’‌‌of‌‌their‌‌objects‌‌of‌‌the‌‌study,‌‌both‌‌benefit‌‌from‌‌
distance‌ ‌
● Distance‌‌makes‌‌‘exotic’‌ ‌
● Sociology‌‌studies‌‌things‌‌in‌‌the‌‌‘here‌‌and‌‌now’‌‌(=‌‌historians‌‌of‌‌the‌‌present/anthropologists‌‌of‌‌the‌‌familiar)‌ ‌
● Ok‌‌when‌‌science‌‌studies‌‌the‌‌practices‌‌and‌‌opinions‌‌of‌‌the‌‌‘other’,‌‌less‌‌OK‌‌when‌‌it‌‌studies‌‌our‌‌own‌ ‌


How?‌ ‌

● Sociology:‌‌denaturalization‌‌through‌‌deindividualization‌ ‌
● Compare‌‌different‌‌groups‌‌(income,‌‌level‌‌of‌‌education,‌‌gender,‌‌ethnicity,‌‌status,‌‌etc.)‌‌within‌‌one‌‌and‌‌the‌‌same‌‌
society‌ ‌
● Show‌‌that‌‌the‌‌“unique”,‌‌the‌‌“subjective”,‌‌the‌‌“personal”,‌‌very‌‌often‌‌has‌‌general,‌‌objective‌‌and‌‌impersonal‌‌
causes‌ ‌
● E.g.‌‌the‌‌importance‌‌of‌‌social‌‌class‌‌(later‌‌this‌‌semester)‌ ‌


A‌‌bitter‌‌pill‌‌ ‌

● Runs‌‌counter‌‌to‌‌the‌‌dominant‌‌social‌‌philosophy‌‌of‌‌our‌‌society‌‌=‌‌individualism‌ ‌
● Sociology‌‌provokes‌‌considerable‌‌resistance…‌‌especially‌‌(but‌‌not‌‌exclusively)‌‌among‌‌privileged‌‌social‌‌groups‌ ‌
● ‘Our‌‌object‌‌objects’‌‌-‌‌Pierre‌‌Bourdieu‌‌ ‌


1.1.2.‌‌Difference‌‌sociology‌‌and‌‌exact‌‌sciences‌ ‌

Double‌‌hermeneutic‌ ‌

Single‌‌hermeneutic‌‌ ‌ Double‌‌hermeneutic‌ ‌
Life‌‌sciences:‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌knowing‌‌goes‌‌one‌‌way‌ ‌ Social‌‌sciences:‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌knowing‌‌goes‌‌two‌‌ways‌ ‌

That‌‌what‌‌you‌‌study,‌‌does‌‌not‌‌interact‌‌back‌ ‌ Interaction‌‌with‌‌object‌‌of‌‌study‌‌is‌‌possible‌‌ ‌

Mutual‌‌interpretative‌‌interplay‌‌ ‌

No‌‌clear‌‌dividing‌‌line‌‌between‌‌informed‌‌sociological‌‌
reflection‌‌carried‌‌on‌‌by‌‌lay‌‌actors‌‌and‌‌similar‌‌
endeavours‌‌on‌‌the‌‌part‌‌of‌‌specialists‌ ‌


● Social‌‌sciences‌‌and‌‌sociology‌‌is‌‌the‌‌‘interpretation‌‌of‌‌interpreting‌‌beings’‌ ‌
● Alfred‌‌Schütz:‌‌sociological‌‌theories‌‌are‌‌theories‌‌of‌‌the‌‌‘second-degree’‌ ‌
● Harold‌‌Garfinkel:‌‌sociology‌‌is‌‌an‌‌(account‌‌of‌‌accounts’‌ ‌
● Sociologists‌‌are‌‌not‌‌the‌‌only‌‌ones‌‌producing‌‌‘theories’‌‌about‌‌social‌‌world‌ ‌
● They‌‌complete‌‌with‌‌both‌‌lay‌‌and‌‌professional‌‌( journalists,‌…
‌ )‌ ‌


2‌ ‌

, A‌‌sociological‌‌syllogism‌ ‌

● The‌‌way‌‌that‌‌human‌‌beings‌‌perceive‌‌and‌‌judge‌‌the‌‌world‌‌is‌‌shaped‌‌by‌‌their‌‌position‌‌in‌‌society‌ ‌
● Sociologists‌‌are‌‌human‌‌beings‌‌ ‌
● Hence:‌‌the‌‌way‌‌that‌‌sociologists‌‌perceive‌‌and‌‌judge‌‌ ‌
● But:‌‌how‌‌is‌‌objective‌‌knowledge‌‌possible?‌‌How‌‌can‌‌we‌‌produce‌‌knowledge‌‌claims‌‌that‌‌are‌‌universally‌‌valid?‌‌ ‌

(Un)learning‌ ‌

● In‌‌the‌‌natural‌‌sciences:‌‌learning‌‌is‌‌discovering‌‌qualitatively‌‌‘new’‌‌aspects‌‌of‌‌reality‌ ‌
○ E.g.‌‌medical‌‌science‌‌student‌‌first‌‌time‌‌see‌‌a‌‌corpse‌→
‌ ‌‌but‌‌we‌‌are‌‌dealing‌‌with‌‌things‌‌we‌‌more‌‌or‌‌less‌‌
already‌‌know‌‌(we‌‌already‌‌have‌‌our‌‌own‌‌ideas‌‌about‌‌it)‌ ‌
● As‌‌sociologists‌‌(and‌‌as‌‌sociology-students):‌‌learning‌‌is‌‌often‌‌un-learning‌ ‌
● Difficulty‌‌=‌‌gaining‌‌a‌‌novel‌‌perspective‌‌on‌‌the‌ ‌thoroughly‌‌familiar‌ ‌
● Especially‌‌in‌‌the‌‌ace‌‌of‌‌existing‌‌‘theories’‌‌and‌‌‘concepts’‌‌about‌‌the‌‌social‌‌world‌‌produced‌‌by‌‌(more‌‌powerful)‌‌
others‌ ‌


‘Common‌‌sense’‌ ‌

● People‌‌don’t‌‌often‌‌have‌‌spontaneous‌‌attitudes‌‌or‌‌strong‌‌feelings‌‌about‌‌‘glucocorticoids’‌‌or‌‌“Higgs’‌‌boson”,‌‌
they‌‌do‌‌have‌‌celar‌‌opinions‌‌about‌‌race,‌‌gender,‌‌the‌‌economy,‌‌education‌‌inequality,‌‌poverty,‌‌etc.‌ ‌
● E.g.‌‌“more‌‌immigration‌‌means‌‌higher‌‌crime‌‌rates.”‌ ‌
● E.g.‌‌“gay‌‌marriage‌‌will‌‌lead‌‌to‌‌the‌‌end‌‌of‌‌the‌‌natural‌‌family.”‌ ‌


The‌‌importance‌‌of‌‌concepts‌‌and‌‌definitions‌ ‌

● Tangled‌‌and‌‌obscured‌‌connotations‌ ‌
● Developing‌‌our‌‌own‌‌language‌‌ ‌
● No‌‌monopoly‌‌on‌‌theory‌‌and‌‌knowledge‌‌of‌‌the‌‌social‌‌world‌ ‌
○ Question:‌‌does‌‌all‌‌of‌‌this‌‌really‌‌matter?‌‌ ‌
○ Answer:‌‌depends‌‌on‌‌your‌‌theoretical‌‌perspective‌ ‌

1.2.‌‌Critique‌ ‌
1.2.1.‌‌Critique‌‌in‌‌western‌‌social‌‌thought‌ ‌
● Immanuel‌‌Kant‌‌-‌“‌ Critique‌‌of‌‌Pure‌‌Reason”‌ ‌
● Karl‌‌Marx‌‌-‌‌“Capital:‌‌A‌‌Critique‌‌of‌‌Political‌‌Economy”‌ ‌


Critique‌‌in‌‌the‌‌Kantian‌‌sense‌ ‌

● The‌‌“Critique‌‌of‌‌Pure‌‌Reason”‌‌is‌‌an‌‌inquiry‌‌into‌‌the‌‌basic‌‌categories‌‌that‌‌enable‌‌human‌‌consciousness‌ ‌
● Consciousness‌‌is‌‌not‌‌passive‌‌reception,‌‌but‌‌actively‌‌shapes‌‌the‌‌world‌‌around‌‌it‌ ‌
● Our‌‌consciousness‌‌is‌‌not‌‌shaped‌‌by‌‌the‌‌world‌‌of‌‌objects,‌‌our‌‌consciousness‌‌shapes‌‌the‌‌world‌‌of‌‌objects‌‌(‌‌=‌‌
‘Copernican‌‌Revolution’)‌ ‌
● For‌‌Kant:‌‌are‌‌“a‌‌priori”‌‌=‌‌innate,‌‌universal‌ ‌
● Hence:‌‌analysis‌‌must‌‌turn‌‌“inwards”,‌‌aim‌‌to‌‌clarify‌‌how‌‌the‌‌actor‌‌experiences‌‌her‌‌world‌‌ ‌


3‌ ‌

Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:

√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews

Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Snel en makkelijk kopen

Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.

Focus op de essentie

Focus op de essentie

Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper dly. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 56326 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen
€6,49  5x  verkocht
  • (1)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd