Scan barcode
annasirius's review against another edition
3.0
I had been recommended this book by a professor years ago during my undergraduate studies, but only now, during the last year of my PhD in Sociology, I took the time to actually read it.
The main idea behind the book is great: usually as an undergraduate student of the social sciences, you are required to gain knowledge about a large number of authors, but you rarely are provided with a good overview of how their work is connected.
I thoroughly enjoyed the prologue that gave insight into the environment in which early social philosophers, economists and the like developed their theories. Since I am not a big fan of conflict/critical theories (in stark contrast to the author) and read the book mainly for the Durkheimian tradition, I skipped over large parts of the first chapter, but I did read its appendix and large parts of chapter 2. And I am not impressed. I had noticed some imprecisions in the prologue already, but the parts on Simmel and Parsons are merely rants about why their work is flawed. The author very clearly has his favourites, and his favourite points within the larger framework of theorists' works, and he focusses freely on them instead of giving a thorough, holistic recount of the sociological theory network - has he promises. This makes it impossible for the readers to assess for themselves which theories they find most useful as empirical tools.
The whole tradition of functionalism is given merely five pages? -You can't be serious! If you have points of critique, please lay out the entire theory before us and then point out what parts of it you find flawed.
The main idea behind the book is great: usually as an undergraduate student of the social sciences, you are required to gain knowledge about a large number of authors, but you rarely are provided with a good overview of how their work is connected.
I thoroughly enjoyed the prologue that gave insight into the environment in which early social philosophers, economists and the like developed their theories. Since I am not a big fan of conflict/critical theories (in stark contrast to the author) and read the book mainly for the Durkheimian tradition, I skipped over large parts of the first chapter, but I did read its appendix and large parts of chapter 2. And I am not impressed. I had noticed some imprecisions in the prologue already, but the parts on Simmel and Parsons are merely rants about why their work is flawed. The author very clearly has his favourites, and his favourite points within the larger framework of theorists' works, and he focusses freely on them instead of giving a thorough, holistic recount of the sociological theory network - has he promises. This makes it impossible for the readers to assess for themselves which theories they find most useful as empirical tools.
The whole tradition of functionalism is given merely five pages? -You can't be serious! If you have points of critique, please lay out the entire theory before us and then point out what parts of it you find flawed.
annasirius's review
3.0
I had been recommended this book by a professor years ago during my undergraduate studies, but only now, during the last year of my PhD in Sociology, I took the time to actually read it.
The main idea behind the book is great: usually as an undergraduate student of the social sciences, you are required to gain knowledge about a large number of authors, but you rarely are provided with a good overview of how their work is connected.
I thoroughly enjoyed the prologue that gave insight into the environment in which early social philosophers, economists and the like developed their theories. Since I am not a big fan of conflict/critical theories (in stark contrast to the author) and read the book mainly for the Durkheimian tradition, I skipped over large parts of the first chapter, but I did read its appendix and large parts of chapter 2. And I am not impressed. I had noticed some imprecisions in the prologue already, but the parts on Simmel and Parsons are merely rants about why their work is flawed. The author very clearly has his favourites, and his favourite points within the larger framework of theorists' works, and he focusses freely on them instead of giving a thorough, holistic recount of the sociological theory network - has he promises. This makes it impossible for the readers to assess for themselves which theories they find most useful as empirical tools.
The whole tradition of functionalism is given merely five pages? -You can't be serious! If you have points of critique, please lay out the entire theory before us and then point out what parts of it you find flawed.
The main idea behind the book is great: usually as an undergraduate student of the social sciences, you are required to gain knowledge about a large number of authors, but you rarely are provided with a good overview of how their work is connected.
I thoroughly enjoyed the prologue that gave insight into the environment in which early social philosophers, economists and the like developed their theories. Since I am not a big fan of conflict/critical theories (in stark contrast to the author) and read the book mainly for the Durkheimian tradition, I skipped over large parts of the first chapter, but I did read its appendix and large parts of chapter 2. And I am not impressed. I had noticed some imprecisions in the prologue already, but the parts on Simmel and Parsons are merely rants about why their work is flawed. The author very clearly has his favourites, and his favourite points within the larger framework of theorists' works, and he focusses freely on them instead of giving a thorough, holistic recount of the sociological theory network - has he promises. This makes it impossible for the readers to assess for themselves which theories they find most useful as empirical tools.
The whole tradition of functionalism is given merely five pages? -You can't be serious! If you have points of critique, please lay out the entire theory before us and then point out what parts of it you find flawed.
More...