1

SOCL 921 Contemporary Debates in Sociological Theory

Theme for Lent Term 2015: Critique, Agency and Power Course Outline and Reading List

Andrew Sayer Department of Sociology Bowland North B15 Office Hours: Wednesdays 11-12.00 hours. a.sayer@lancaster.ac.uk Course summary There are many theoretical debates going on in contemporary sociology and they tend to be very entangled. The main ones well focus on are, in order of emphasis, critique, agency, and power, though lots of other issues will inevitably crop up too. Critique Sociology has long been regarded by both advocates and opponents as subversive, and the pre-fix critical continues to be popular for many kinds of social research. Common targets of critique range from race, gender, exploitation, surveillance, through to modernity itself and the very idea of social science. However, just what a critical approach means is often unclear. In what sense might social theory and research be said to be critical? Of what is it critical?: earlier social theory?; the existing social order?; errors and misunderstandings in lay thought?; domination, injustice and suffering? And on what does it base its critiques? What critical standpoints are implied and how might these be defended? Why are certain things judged to be problematic, and others not? Is there any difference between scepticism and critique? Is the overwhelming focus of much social theory on the bad rather than the good a problem? Critique implies valuation and valuation implies values, yet many regard these as beyond the scope of reason and evidence and as a threat to social science and its pursuit of objectivity. This raises the question of whether the idea of critical social science is compatible with objectivity and indeed whether this concept is tenable. Does critique escape relativism and subjectivism - and indeed dogmatism? Does the idea of critical social research challenge or presuppose Enlightenment ideals? The emphasis will be on types of contemporary social science which regard themselves as critical, rather than on critical theory as defined by the Frankfurt school, or as the term is used in literary studies. One of the key themes of the lectures will be on the nature of values, especially ethical values, and their role in everyday life and social science. This is related to an interest in lay normativity - how and why people evaluate things as good, bad, right, wrong, etc.;

2

Agency Sociology has always challenged the commonsense view that we are sovereign subjects, autonomous and able to steer ourselves through life, and personally responsible for all our actions, so that basically, society is the outcome of such actions. In opposition to this, sociology has in various ways emphasized how people are shaped by their situation, by social relations and structures, discourses, ideologies, forms of power, often to the point of appearing to deny them any, reflexivity, agency or responsibility or choice. Yet in everyday life, sociologists, like others, hold others responsible for doing certain things. In social theory, there are recurrent debates about these issues, under the banner of structure and agency or reflexivity, or the subject. Different theorists that we look at have different views on this. By comparing them, I hope you can come to a view on these matters. Power This is a third, though more minor theme. What is power? Is it something that some people or institutions have and others dont? Is it something people are aware of? Is it pervasive or highly localized? How do discourses figure in power? Is it the same as domination? Or can it be constructive as well as repressive? How does it operate at micro and macro levels, economically, culturally, politically? The prime aim of the course is to examine some recent influential social theory and research in order to assess in what sense and respects it might be said to be critical, and whether it is persuasive or defensible in this regard. In other words, we shall reflect on the above questions by studying examples of substantive research, such as feminist critiques of gender orders, Baumans critique of modernity, Bourdieus critique of symbolic domination, Foucault on power/knowledge. A secondary aim is to gain practice in close, critical reading of examples of such texts and examining what they presuppose, and in considering the criteria by which they might be assessed. Lectures and seminars will be on Wednesdays starting 14th January in Bowland North SR 4 3.00-5.30pm Most sessions will start with an interruptible lecture, then a quick break, then a seminar beginning with a presentation by students taking the course for assessment followed by small group discussions and general discussion. For most sessions, in order to provide a common basis for discussion, Ill ask everyone to read one or two main readings plus any others from the further readings that they have time for. But in one or two sessions, I will ask people choose a reading from a short list and be prepared to describe, explain and reflect on it to others; in such sessions I obviously dont want everyone to read the same thing.

3

Assessment: One 5,000 word essay. To be submitted by 4pm, 27th April 2015 to Cathlin Prill, the MA Coordinator. Guideline essay titles see below; i.e. you may either choose one of these or negotiate a title with me, according to your interests in relation to the course. Ill arrange one-to-one meetings for this after about week 6. Outline in brief 1. Introduction: What is critique and what does it presuppose? 2. Values: Exorcising the Ghost of Weber 3. Bauman 4. Bourdieu 5. Foucault and Power 6. Reflexivity in Everyday Life : Margaret Archer 7. Feminist approaches 8. Well-being and Social Science 9. Neoliberalism: a contested concept 10. Conclusions Some suggested questions These are questions it would be good to keep asking throughout the course. They are difficult to answer but try to keep them in mind when reading each new author: In what sense, is any, is their work critical? Evaluate their arguments and justifications. How does the author understand the idea of critique? How do they view values? - as susceptible to rational argument and evidence or as beyond them? How do they justify their own particular critique both in general and as regards specific critical points? What, if any, alternatives to the tendencies being critiqued are proposed or implied? Does the critical content of the work weaken or strengthen its explanatory adequacy or scientific status? What view, if any, is implied as to the rationality and agency of lay people? How are subjects and agency understood? And how does this fit with how the authors view themselves? Can the authors live their theory, or is there a contradiction between their theory and their practice? How do they conceptualise power? What is the authors implicit or explicit view of science, truth or reason? How does the authors own practice fit with this? What kinds of political position does the author assume the reader already accepts? How do/would they regard the concept of human nature? Are they utopian or dystopian? Whats the tone of their writing like? Ominous? Grandiose? Dispassionate? Passionate?

4

MOODLE discussion board Please use the discussion board to raise any issues you want about the readings and topics as we proceed through the course. For instance, if theres something that puzzles you in preparing for a seminar you can use it to ask others what they think. For the final session of the course, instead of discussing a particular author or approach I will ask you to post general comments and questions on the issues raised by the course, and we will discuss these in the seminar.

5

Week by week guide

Many of those taking this course will have become familiar in their previous work with some social theory. You are invited to draw upon additional readings to those on the reading list - though not as a substitute for the key ones. 1. Introduction(s) and arrangements. 14th January Opening lecture: What is critical about critical social science?: The divorce of positive and normative thought in social science. Please come prepared to discuss what you currently understand by the prefix critical. Think of exemplars of critical social science. In what sense is the critical social science that you are familiar with critical? 2. Exorcising the Ghost of Weber: Values in social science Whenever the person of science introduces his personal value judgment, a full understanding of the facts ceases (Weber, Science as a Vocation, 1946, p.146) Many people, including many contemporary social scientists, would regard critical social science, as an oxymoron, arguing that insofar as it makes critiques of social phenomena, it must be based on values, and these are commonly seen as antithetical to science and reason. It therefore seems sensible to examine this basic challenge to critical social science at the outset. Weber offers perhaps the most sophisticated and influential version of this view, though many would also regard him as an important critical social scientist (for example, his work develops a major critique of rationalisation in modernity.) Many who would reject his views of values in social science actually share his ideas of what values are. Weber is of course hardly contemporary, but at least as regards values, his ghost still haunts contemporary sociology. It is not only conservatives or positivists who see values and objectivity as opposed, but many radicals too: while the former aim to quarantine values in the interests of objectivity, the latter are willing to drop the quest for objectivity in order to retain a place for values. The main reading tries to counter the dominant but unnoticed influence of Webers view of values and normativity in contemporary sociology by offering an alternative view. Try to work out what your own view of these matters is, though they are issues that recur throughout the course.

6

Seminar main reading: Sayer, A. (2011) Why Things Matter to People, chapter 2. On MOODLE. Further Reading 1) Section I of Weber, M. Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy, in his Methodology of the Social Sciences, pp. 49-112. Also in Readings in Introductory Sociology ed. by Dennis Wrong and Harry Gracey, pp. 187-192 and Rogers Brubaker, The Limits of Rationality, pp. 1-44, and in Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch (eds.) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. 2) 2nd half of Weber, M. Science as a Vocation, in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Translated and edited), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, pp. 129-156, New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. (from paragraph beginning Under these internal presuppositions . . . Three critical responses to Weber: Anderson, E. (2004) Uses of value judgements in science: a general argument, with lessons for a case study of feminist research on divorce Hypatia, 19 (1), pp.1-24 MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue, chs 2 and 3 Bennett, J (2001) The Enchantment of Modern Life direct critique of Webers ideas of the disenchantment of the modern world. 3. Bauman Zygmunt Bauman is an extraordinarily prolific and influential critical sociologist. Born in 1925 in Poland, he joined the Soviet controlled Polish army to fight the Nazis, and became a communist but later a dissident in the 1960s. In 1968, as a result of a combination of anti-semitism and persecution for his dissidence, he lost his chair at the University of Warsaw; from there he went to Israel, before moving to England in 1971. His essay Requiem for communism, published in Collateral Damage, comes from first hand experience, and situated within the perspective, developed over the last 25 years, of a shift from solid to liquid modernity. You can get further impressions of this framework from virtually any of his recent books, where it is mobilised in relation to a number of targets, including rationality, ethics, consumption, identity, families and interpersonal relationships, and insecurity. Other authors (e.g. Richard Sennett The Corrosion of Character; Scott Lash and John Urry The End of Organized Capitalism) have written on similar developments in modernity or as a shift from modernity to postmodernity. In Modernity and the Holocaust, published in 1989 and probably the most weighty and discussed of his works, he developed the argument (not an original one) that the Holocaust was not a consequence of a loss of rationality but precisely a result of its excessive growth in governing action.

7

Opinion on the quality of his work is divided. It is undoubtedly critical sociology in a strong sense that is, it is critical of its object society. Is it a good model for sociologists and others to follow? Seminar main reading: Bauman, Z. (2011) Requiem for communism, ch. 2 (plus preceding 2 pages) of his new book Collateral Damage. On MOODLE Further reading Bauman, Z. (2012 edition) Liquid Modernity see new preface and any other chapter of the book electronic resource in library at KDQK Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust Bauman, Z. (1993) Postmodern Ethics, ch.1 Here B elaborates his view of morality and ethics as a-rational. Kilminster, R. (2013) Critique and over-critique in sociology, Human Figurations, 2 (2) http://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0002.205/--critique-and-overcritique-in-sociology?rgn=main;view=fulltext Du Gay, P. In Praise of Bureaucracy look up critique of Bauman Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 15 (1) several articles evaluating Bauman Fine, R. and Hirsch, D. (2000) The decision to commit a crime against humanity, in Archer, M.S and Quitter, J.Q. (eds) Rational Choice Theory: Resisting Colonization, London: Routledge, pp.183-199 interesting critique of Bauman on rationalisation, modernity and the Holocaust Vetlesen, J.A. Evil and Human Agency 4. Bourdieu [Critique has] retreated into the small world of academe, where it enchants itself with itself without ever being in a position to really threaten anyone about anything. (Bourdieu, P. 2003, Firing Back, p. 2) . . . the theory of the habitus allows us to explain the apparent truth of the

theory that it shows to be false (Bourdieu, 2005, Social Structures of the Economy, p.215). Pierre Bourdieus massive output of books and articles seems undeniably critical in tone and content, and he identifies some hitherto overlooked sources and forms of domination, particularly concerning cultural capital He argues that sociology can and should be simultaneously critical and scientific - standing up to words and making trouble. He has much to say on what a scientific approach involves, particularly regarding reflexivity, and the relation of subject and object, and is critical of most other approaches to the subject, in particular for failing to counter the distortions produced by the unaware projection of the academic relationship to the social world onto lay actors, and hence failing to understand their primarily practical orientation to the world. Although he uses inescapably evaluative terms, such as symbolic domination, with the exception of some of his last, more political works, he does not elaborate what is problematic about the processes in question, or the standpoint from which his critiques are

8

developed, but leaves this implicit. However, in his later life he became more politically involved: his Political Interventions contains numerous short speeches and articles. There are many critiques of his work, most of them charging him with determinism and for inadvertently underestimating agency and the possibilities for change. (E.g. Jenkins, Rancire, Boltanski, Shusterman). Seminar reading: Bourdieu, P (1993) Sociology in Question especially the interviews in the early chapters 1-5 and chs 18 + 19 - interviews and short essays relevant to Bourdieus views on the critical role of sociology. Pages 8-35 are available on MOODLE If you are completely new to Bourdieu, I will post my lecture notes on him on MOODLE in advance of the seminar, so you can read them. Or select sections from (for example) the following which you find interesting as examples of critical social science to discuss: Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power, Ch. 11 Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, ch.1 Bourdieu, P. 2008 Political Interventions e.g. interview: Giving voice to the voiceless Bourdieu, P et al (1999) The Weight of the World Bourdieu, P. (2001) Firing Back: Against the Tyranny of the Market, NY: The New Press especially For a scholarship with commitment. Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian Meditations, mainly a critique of social science and the scholastic fallacy Bourdieu, P. (1996) The State Nobility Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus Bourdieu, P. (1998) The Rules of Art Bourdieu, P. (2004) Science of Science and Reflexivity, Cambridge: Polity Bourdieus critique of the sociology of science. Bourdieu, P Sociology is a martial art film on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csbu08SqAuc Further reading Sayer, A. (2005) The Moral Significance of Class, chs 2 and 5 include sympathetic critiques of Bourdieus concepts of habitus and capitals, respectively. Reay, D., David, M.E. and Ball, S. (2005) Degrees of Choice: Social Class, Race and Gender in Higher Education, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Uses Bourdieus concepts for understanding how individuals choose university. Other critical assessments:- Shusterman, R. (ed) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader Adkins, L. et al (eds) (2005) Feminism After Bourdieu McNay, L. (2014) The Misguided Search for the Political RBO , Ch. 1 Boltanski, L. (2011) On Critique

9

Rancire, J. (2004) The Philosopher and his Poor, ch 9. Fowler, B. (ed) (2000) Reading Bourdieu on Society and Culture Jenkins, R. (2012) Pierre Bourdieu Swartz, D. (1997) Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu K84.B7 Archer, M.S. (2012) The Reflexive Imperative, ch. 2 5. Foucault and Power Foucaults work is highly original, diverse in approach, providing new ways of thinking about power, discourse, knowledge and truth and the relations between them, about the constitution of subjects, culture and nature and the social role of the social sciences. For example, Foucault and followers have tracked the way in which, through various technologies, neoliberal societies construct self-disciplining subjects, responsible for themselves, planning their lives, and competing with others; neoliberal universities and their students and academics are a good example! The Anglo-Foucauldians have been especially interested in this (see Jessop, 2010). Particularly in his early work, his writing has a strongly anti-subjectivist character, seeing the subject as formed through power (subjected). There are two meanings of the word subject: subject to someone else by control and dependence, and tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. (Foucault in Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1984). Foucaults primary concerns are usually analyses of localised, phenomena rather than the construction of grand social theory, reflecting a view of history as contingent, not inevitable, as in crudely deterministic readings of Marx. Even the more stable and widespread features of certain periods are the product of scattered tendencies and accidents that happened to coalesce. For example, he attempts to show that what have been seen as universal features of human nature are in fact specific products of particular societies. His work on the history of sexuality is an example of this. Nevertheless, he does also make sweeping claims on the basis of these studies which have far-reaching implications. He was probably the first social theorist to analyse neoliberalism, and was remarkably prescient about it (see week 9). A characteristic of his work is the conceptualisation of power as productive as well as negative (though the tone of his writing is overwhelmingly negative), and as dispersed and ubiquitous, rather than localised and held by particular agents. His analyses have provoked a range of different responses, some negative, seeing concepts such as regimes of truth as self-undermining and his work as crypto-normative, while others argue for more positive, charitable readings. We shall focus particularly on his conceptualisation of power and apply our usual questions to the readings. Seminar readings: Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish, especially The means of correct training (pp.170-194). See also: The carceral (pp. 298-308) on MOODLE Foucault, M. (1978) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 section on Method on MOODLE

10

Further reading Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge, section on Truth and Power Foucault, M. What is Critique?, in Sylvre Lotringer and Lysa Hochroth eds., The Politics of Truth (New York: Semiotext(e), 1997) also in P.Rabinow and N.Rose (eds) The Essential Foucault, NY: New Press, pp. 263-278 Foucault, M. (2000) Michel Foucault: Ethics, ed. P.Rabinow, London: Penguin Hoy, D.C. (ed.) Foucault: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell especially the essay by Taylor Fraser, N (1981) Foucault on modern power: empirical insights and normative confusions, Praxis International, 1 (3) October pp.272-87 reprinted in Frasers Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory McNay, L. (1996) Foucault: A Critical Introduction Soper, K. (1995) Forget Foucault? New Formations, 25, Summer, pp.21-7 Walzer, M The lonely politics of Michel Foucault in Walzers (2002) The Company of Critics, NY Basic books, pp.191-209 Lemke, Thomas (2002) Foucault, governmentality and critique, Rethinking Marxism,14(3), 49-64. Jessop, B. (2010) Constituting Another Foucault Effect. Foucault on States and Statecraft http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/cperc/docs/CR-Jessop-Foucault.pdf Foucault, M. (1984) What is Enlightenment?, in Paul Rabinow ed., The Foucault Reader, New York: Pantheon Books. On MOODLE course website, in Additional Papers or at: http://foucault.info/documents/whatIsEnlightenment/foucault.whatIsEnlightenment.en.html Alcoff, Linda Martn (1996) Real Knowing, chapter 5 (and 4) on Foucault and truth Bartky, S.L. (2002) Sympathy and Solidarity, ch.2 Sayer, A. (2012) Power, causality and normativity: a critical realist critique of Foucault, Journal of Political Power, 5:2, 179-194 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2012.698898 Bevir, M. (2002) A humanist critique of the archaeology of the human sciences History Of The Human Sciences Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 119138 Tallis, R. (1999) Enemies of Hope Archer, M 2000 Being Human, ch 1 N.Chomsky and M.Foucault (1974) Human nature: justice versus power in F.Elders (ed) Reflexive Water, London, pp. 133-99. An interesting debate between two very influential yet different critical social scientists. Available at: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes Nietzsche, F. On the Genealogy of Morals- if you are already familiar with Foucault, Nietzsche will seem strikingly familiar . . . Archer, M (2000) Being Human, chapter 1 Craib, I. 1997, Social constructionism as a social psychosis, Sociology, 31 (1) pp. 1-18 Dews, P. Logics of Disintegration Lukes, S. Power: A Radical View, 2nd edition For a comparison of Foucault and Bourdieu see Bennett, T (2010) Culture, Power, Knowledge in Silva, E. and Warde, A, (eds) Cultural Analysis and

11

Bourdieus Legacy: Settling Accounts and Developing Alternatives, London: Routledge, pp.102-116 6. Reflexivity in everyday life: Margaret Archer Sociologists generally explain social action by reference to individuals socialization/social conditioning/subjectivation (how theyve been shaped/made by their social situation and by dominant discourses) and the social conditions in which they are currently acting. This is why they do x or y or z (e.g. vote Conservative, adopt gendered behaviour, watch certain TV programmes, etc.). Sociologists characteristically oppose individualistic explanations common in popular thought. Although its common for sociologists to ask people for their accounts or views of their actions and situation, these are typically taken largely as products of their socialization and situation, and as facts about them. A longstanding criticism of sociology is that it treats people as cultural dopes, as no more than the sum of the influences upon them. If I said you only think x because youre a sociology student and come from a particular background, you would probably feel insulted. I would be implying you have no reflexivity, no capacity to take a distance from the influences upon you, and reflect upon them, and decide how to act or what to think. It would be deterministic. Margaret Archer is the author of many books on social theory including several on lay reflexivity: i.e. the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their social contexts and vice versa. Alternatively it may be defined as how people reflect upon the relation between their constraints and opportunities and their own concerns. She is critical of the many social theorists (Bourdieu, for example) who ignore or leave little space for this everyday reflexivity, or who reduce it to products of dominant discourses. E.g. Identities are points of temporary attachment to the subject positions which discursive practices construct for us. They are the result of a successful articulation or chaining of the subject into the flow of discourse. Stuart Hall, 1996, Who needs identity? in Hall, S., and Du Gay, P. (eds) Questions of Cultural Identity, Sage). She has conducted some very interesting empirical research on peoples internal conversations how they talk to themselves to assess, mediate and negotiate the constraints and enablements or opportunities they face. She claims that different people do reflexivity in different ways, and she offers a sociological explanation of why this is. In addition, she argues that reflexivity is becoming an imperative for people in late modernity: the pace of change has increased, allegedly breaking up the classical sociological groupings and identities (class, gender, ethnicity) and forcing individuals to make their own way through the world. In this respect, she provides her own interpretation of ideas about increasing reflexivity and individualism that were first raised in the 1990s in work by Ulrich Beck and others.

12

For the seminar we will focus on two issues: 1. What role should the reflexivity of ordinary people play in social theory? How far is it acknowledged/ignored/dismissed/emphasized? How far should it be acknowledged, and in what way? Is Archers critique of the concept of habitus right? 2. Are we now living in an era in which change is so fast, that habitual and learned responses quickly become useless, so continual reflexivity and ability to decide for oneself how to negotiate the world become a necessity? Glossary for reading Archer Morphostasis: situation in which social processes tend to maintain a systems existing form of organization. (Societies in this situation were called cold societies by Levi-Strauss, the anthropologist.) Morphogenesis: situation in which social processes tend continually to change existing forms of organization. (Hot societies, in Levi-Strauss terms.) Seminar main reading Archer, M., (2007) Making Our Way Through the World, Chapter 1, on MOODLE Further reading Archer, M. (2012) The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity, Cambridge UP Chapter 1 Archer, M.S. (2009) Can reflexivity and habitus work in tandem?, in Archer, M.S. (ed) Conversations about Reflexivity, London: Routledge, also if you have time, my own chapter in the same volume Or: Chapter 2 of Archers The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity Sayer, A. (2011) Why Things Matter to People, especially Chapters 1 and 3 re: issue 1. Adkins, L. (2002) Revisions: Gender and Sexuality in Late Modernity, Open UP Beck, U. and Beck-Garnsheim, E. (2002) Individualization, Sage Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive Modernization 7. Feminist critiques More than any of the other approaches discussed in the course, feminist research is related to a strong social movement (though feminists disagree on whether the movement has lost momentum or continued to advance). Hence, not surprisingly, it is unmistakeably critical and its critical standpoints are more discernible than those of others. There is also, as we shall see later, a closer relation between positive and normative thought. However, views on the precise nature of the problems it addresses have changed and diversified (for example, regarding difference and equality, and sex and gender). It has also developed a distinctive set of debates and positions regarding the nature of knowledge and

13

social research, most notably feminist standpoint theory, and these have important implications for conceptions of critique (see Anderson). I suggest we focus on comparing some of the main characteristics and concerns of different kinds of academic feminism. One way of doing this is by using Mikkola Maris review of different feminist approaches to sex and gender; another is via a comparison of Sylvia Walby and Angela McRobbies views on the fortunes of feminist movements. We should also ask what feminist literature implies we should do about gender? Seminar readings we will have two or three presentations on these different themes this week. (i)Sex and gender These all relate to the sex-gender distinction in feminism - what it might be and whether its tenable: Mikkola, Mari (2011) Feminist perspectives on sex and gender, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Useful overview. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ Judith Butler the most prominent critic of the distinction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7o2LYATDc On trans-gender interview: http://www.transadvocate.com/gender-performance-the-transadvocate-interviews-judith-butler_n_13652.htm Linda Martn Alcoff on the sex/gender distinction http://www.alcoff.com/content/chap6metags.html Gunnarson, L. (2013) The naturalistic turn in feminist theory: a Marxist-realist contribution, Feminist Theory, 14 (1) identifies a nature-phobic tendency in post-structuralist feminism. (ii) Feminism and power Allen, A. 2011, Feminist perspectives on power, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/ (iii) Optimistic and pessimistic views of the future of feminism, see Walby, S. 2011 The Future of Feminism excerpt on MOODLE McRobbie, A. 2009 The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change excerpt on MOODLE Further Reading McNay, L. (2000) Gender and Agency, critique of feminist social theorys negative view of agency. Anderson, E (2003) Feminist epistemology and Philosophy of Science - available both in the free online resource Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/ Fraser, N. 2009 Feminism, capitalism and the cunning of history, New Left Review, 56 - is there a dangerous liaison between second-wave feminism and neoliberalism?

14

or her video lecture: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/fraser030310.html Sterba, J.P. Ethics the Big Questions, Debate btwn Susan Moller Okin and Jane Flax p.422-446, on postmodernism and culture, inequality, ethics and difference Haraway, D. (1997) Modest Witness@Second Millenium Butler, J (1990) Gender Trouble Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender New, C (2005) Sex and gender: a critical realist approach New Formations, 56, pp.54-70 Nussbaum, M. (1999) Sex and Social Justice Fraser, N. and Naples, N.A. (2004) To interpret the world and to change it: an interview with Nancy Fraser, Signs, 29 (4) pp.1103-1124 Butler, J. (2001) What is critique?: An essay on Foucaults virtue, in S.Salih The Judith Butler Reader or at: http://transform.eipcp.net/transversal/0806/butler/en or http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/kadish/what is critique J Butler.pdf Benhabib, S and Cornell, D (1987) Feminism as Critique Soper, K. Troubled Pleasures, feminist critiques of postmodernism 8. Well-being and Social Science Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: what shall we do and how shall we live? Tolstoy So far we have looked at examples of critical social science which either lack critical standpoints or leave largely implicit their ideas as to what would constitute improvement or emancipation. While many sociologists use negative words like oppression, exploitation, domination or abuse in their accounts, few are willing to say what constitutes well-being or good forms of living, indeed many would be very wary of doing so, particularly given the variety of cultural conceptions of well-being. Should they be? An exception is the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum on capabilities, providing a partial rebuttal to Tolstoys famous claim. Working in the area of development economics and philosophy their critiques are informed by concepts of what is involved in well-being or eudaimonia or flourishing, and suffering. In feminist literature positive and normative thought are often closer, so that the relation of critiques to normative ideas of what constitutes ill-being and well-being is clearer. (E.g. empirical work on care, which has informed and been informed by normative theory of the ethic of care - see work of Joan Tronto, Eva Kittay). One of the features of Sen and Nussbaums approaches is a defence of universals, opposing a common poststructuralist antipathy. This is taken up in Martha Nussbaums chapter. The articles by Mackenzie, Menon and Charusheela highlight the dangers of ethnocentrism in her work. Some of the further readings e.g. Walby, 2010; Sayer 2012; Holmwood, 2013; Carpenter, 2009; Dean 2009

15

argue that Sen, Nussbaum and co. take too little account of sociological knowledge. Seminar main reading: Nussbaum, M.C. (2000) In defense of universal values, in her Women and Human Development, on MOODLE Further Reading Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, especially ch. 4 Nussbaum, M. (1999) Sex and Social Justice Sayer, A (2011) Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life (CUP) Chapter 4 Mackenzie, J 2009 Refiguring universalism: Martha Nussbaum and Judith Butler an uneasy alliance, Australian Feminist Studies, 24 (61) pp. 343-358 Nussbaum, M. (2012) Creating Capabilities Walby, S. (2010) Sen and the measurement of justice, Theory, Culture and Society Charusheela (2009) Social analysis and the capabilities approach: a limit to Martha Nussbaums universalist ethics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33 (6) pp.1135 Menon, N. (2002) Universalism without foundations? Economy and Society, 31, (1) pp152-169 (review of Nussbaums Women and Human Development) Dean, H. (2009) Critiquing capabilities: the distractions of a beguiling concept, Critical Social Policy, 29(2), pp. 261278. Carpenter, Mick (2009) The capabilities approach and critical social policy: lessons from the majority world? Critical Social Policy, Vol.29 (No.3). pp. 351-373 Sayer, A. (2012) Capabilities, contributive justice and unequal divisions of labour Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development, 13:4DOI:10.1080/19452829.2012.693069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2012.693069 Doyal, L and Gough, I. 1991 A Theory of Human Need, Basingstoke: Macmillan, Part I defence of universalism Tronto, J (1995) Moral Boundaries Tobias, S. (2005) Foucault on freedom and capabilities, Theory, Culture and Society, 22 (4) 65-85. Wilkinson, I. (2005) Suffering: A Sociological Introduction, Cambridge: Polity N.Chomsky and M.Foucault (1974) Human nature: justice versus power in F.Elders (ed) Reflexive Water, London, pp. 133-99. An interesting debate between two very influential yet different critical social scientists, with Chomsky supporting and Foucault opposing universals and the idea of critique appealing to human nature. Transcript also available at: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm An edited video version can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes Holmwood, J. (2013) Public Reasoning without Sociology: Amartya Sen's Theory of Justice Sociology, 47: 1171: http://soc.sagepub.com/content/47/6/1171

16

Olson, E. and Sayer A. (2008) Radical geography and its critical standpoints: embracing the normative, Antipode, 41 (1), pp. 180-198 Nussbaum interview http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1489004289964352741 9. Neoliberalism: a contested concept This is an example of how different critical social theorists approach a particular topic. Neoliberalism is usually taken to be the dominant form of contemporary capitalism, characterised not only be market fundamentalism a belief in the superiority of the market as a form of social organisation and regulation, and the increased dominance of global capital over labour but by certain common cultural tendencies, forms of governmentality, precarity, the replacement of welfare by workfare and perhaps penalfare. Within education it is arguably exemplified by the obsession with curriculum vitae, self-assessment and self-promotion, audits, models of best practice, performance monitoring, league tables and competition, and more broadly the treatment of education as servant to the economy. If the term neoliberal is to be of any use for interpreting contemporary society it cannot simply refer to everything about contemporary society: it must be more specific. In what respects is it neoliberal? In what respects might university education be said to be neoliberal? We might also ask what is not neoliberal? Reading For this week I dont want everyone to read the same thing for the seminar, but to choose one of the following that appeals, and be prepared to describe, explain and reflect on it to the rest of the group, so we can get a wider view and compare notes. Mirowski, P. (2013) Never Let a Serious Crisis to Go to Waste, ch. 3. On MOODLE. The author is particularly good on the intellectual and institutional origins of neoliberalism in a group of economic theorists the neoliberal thought collective, and in this chapter on how it affects everyday life. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Note this has a chapter on Neoliberalism and China) RAYL3 (H) or electronic copy in library Foucault, F. (1979, 2008) The Birth of Biopolitics, Lecture 9, particularly pp.226-231, and lecture 10, pp.243-259. On MOODLE. A remarkably prescient analysis of neoliberalism, given it had hardly begun as a political movement in 1979. Explains the significance of competition, human capital, and the individual as entrepreneur of herself.

17

Wendy Brown short talk on universities and neoliberalism at Berkeley U of California https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR4xYBGdQgw And a more theoretical lecture:- Brown, W. (2014) Governmentality in the age of neoliberalism video lecture at: http://pactac.net/2014/03/wendy-browngovernmentality-in-the-age-of-neoliberalism/ Wacquant, L. (2010) Crafting the neoliberal state, Sociological Forum, 25 (2) pp. 197-220. Argues, with reference to the US case, that most theorists of neoliberalism have missed its relation to workfare and penalfare. http://loicwacquant.net/assets/Papers/CRAFTINGNEOLIBERALSTATE-pub.pdf Bob Jessop on neoliberalism and crisis http://bobjessop.org/2014/05/08/interview-the-fessud-annual-conference-financialisation-and-the-financial-crisis/ http://www.newsrecord.co/neoliberalism-and-the-commercialization-of-higher-education/ There are lots of things on neoliberalism and higher education on the internet. Here are a few, but you can find your own too:

Giroux, H. (2014) Defending higher education in the era of neoliberal savagery http://www.discoversociety.org/2014/03/04/defending-higher-education-in-the-age-of-neoliberal-savagery/ Radice, H. (2013) How we got here: UK higher education under neoliberalism http://www.acme-journal.org/vol12/Radice2013.pdf An organisation called govknow epitomises a neoliberal approach to education. See this and other events it sponsors: http://govknow.com/event-detail.html?id=849

10. Conclusions Using the MOODLE discussion board, the purpose of this last seminar is to discuss the major points or questions you want to raise that seem important to you that arise from the course. Please post 200-400 words on this, either taking up issues others have raised or initiating your own. It would also be helpful to discuss this article on overcritique: - it criticizes the overwhelmingly negative view of society given in much critical social science, using the example of Bauman. Kilminster, R. (2013) Critique and overcritique in sociology, Human Figurations, 2 (2):

18

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0002.205/--critique-and-overcritique-in-sociology?rgn=main;view=fulltext If this interests you, you may find these useful, too: Graeber, D (2001) Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value, Palgrave, pp.26-30 uses Bourdieu as an example of overcritique McNay, L. (2000) Gender and Agency, Lynch, M. 2000 Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge, Theory, Culture Society, 17 (3) pp.26-54 You may also find the debates on Public Sociology, initiated by Michael Burawoy interesting: http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS.Webpage/ps.mainpage.htm Essays: guideline titles: 1. Critique, whether it realises it or not, presupposes a conception of the good life, or human flourishing. Discuss by reference to examples in social science. 2. [C]ritique is understood as an interrogation of the terms by which life is constrained (Judith Butler, Undoing Gender). Discuss. 3. Assess Foucaults views on critique {[A] critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest. (1998, Interview with Didier Eribon, 1981. In L.Kritzman (ed) Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture, N.Y.: Routledge, p.155). Criticism is no longer going to be practised in the pursuit of formal structures with universal value, but rather as a historical investigation into the events that have led us to constitute ourselves and recognise ourselves in what we do, think and say. (Foucault in Rabinow, 1984, p.46 and in Foucault, What is Enlightenment?) The role of an intellectual is not to tell others what they have to do. By what right would he do so? The work of the intellectual is not to shape others political will: it is, through the analyses that he carried out in his own field, to question over and over again what is postulated as self-evident, to disturb peoples mental habits, the way they do and think things. Foucault (1997, Polemics, Politics and Problematization: An Interview, P.Rabinow (ed.) Essential Works of Foucault, NY, New Press, p.131). [ if you do this, use a short title for your essay!] 4. What is the distinctive nature of the critiques developed by Marxist/feminist/Bourdieuian/Foucauldian social scientists? How can their critiques be justified? 5. Compare two contrasting conceptions of, or approaches to, critical social science. 6. Critical theory presumes that the normative ideals used to criticize a society are rooted in experience of a reflection on that very society, and

19

that norms can come from nowhere else. I.M. Young (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton UP, p. 5. Discuss 7. Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: What shall we do and how shall we live? (Tolstoy, quoted in Weber, Science as a Vocation.) Evaluate this claim with reference to contemporary sociological theory as an example of social science. 8. [S]ocial criticism is less the practical offspring of scientific knowledge than the educated cousin of common complaint. (Walzer, 1993, p.56). Discuss 9. Do people have responsibility for their actions? {this implies a discussion of concepts like habitus, subjectification, lay reflexivity} 10. Can and should we do without a concept of human nature? 11. Public sociology: long overdue or a step too far? http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS.Webpage/ps.mainpage.htm 12. Sociology and the accusation of overcritique. 13. Does neoliberal just mean bad? Other interesting quotes that might motivate an essay:- [The critic} is not a detached observer, even when he looks at the society he inhabits with a fresh and skeptical eye. He is not an enemy, even when he is fiercely opposed to this or that prevailing practice or institutional arrangement. His criticism does not require either detachment or enmity, because he finds a warrant for critical engagement in the idealism, even if it is a hypocritical idealism, of the actually existing moral world. (Walzer, M (1989) Interpretation and Social Criticism, Harvard UP p. 61) According to Max Horkheimers . . . definition, a theory is critical only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify actors to change it, and provide clear norms for criticism and practical goals for the future. (James Bohman 1996, p.190) Paradoxically, sociology frees us from the illusion of freedom, or, more precisely, from misplaced belief in illusory freedoms. Freedom is not a given but a conquest, and a collective one. (Bourdieu, 1987, p.26. cited in Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1991, p. 49 n87). The time has come to go beyond the old alternative of utopianism and sociologism, and propose utopias that are sociologically based. This requires that specialists in the social sciences collectively manage to burst apart the censorship they believe they have to impose on themselves in the name of a mutilated idea of scientificity. [ . . . ] These sciences have paid for their access to scientific status (still contested, in any case) by a formidable renunciation: a self-censorship that amounts to a self-mutilation, and sociologists and I start with myself, as I have often

20

denounced the temptation to prophecy and social philosophy have staunchly rejected, as deviations from scientific morality that threaten to discredit their authors, all attempts to propose an ideal and global representation of the social world. Bourdieu, 2008, in Political Interventions, p. xiv By underestimating actors critical capacities and offering them an image of themselves that stresses their dependency, passivity and illusions, overarching sociologies of domination tend to have an effect of demoralization and, in some sense, dispossession of self, which especially in historical contexts where reality seems particularly robust can transform relativism into nihilism and realism into fatalism. Luc Boltanksi, 2011, On Critique, p.46 Foucaults analyses seem to bring evils to light; and yet he wants to distance himself from the suggestion which would seem inescapably to follow, that the negation or overcoming of these evils promotes a good. (Charles Taylor, 1986, Foucault on freedom and truth in D.C.Hoy [ed.] Foucault: A Critical Reader, p.69 In effect, the idea of critique is meaningful only when there is a difference between a desirable and an actual state of affairs. L.Boltanski and E. Chiapello The New Spirit of Capitalism, p. 27 "There is no such thing as truth. Science is a social phenomenon and like every other social phenomenon is limited by the benefit or injury it confers on the community" (Hitler, cited in G.Daniel The Idea of Pre-History, London, C.A.Watts and C0. 1962, p.118). "Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition . . . From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable" (Mussolini, cited in Veach, 1962). The intellectuals error consists in believing that one can know without understanding or even more feeling and being impassioned (not only for knowledge in itself but also for the object of knowledge; in other words that the intellectual can be an intellectual (and not a pure pedant) if distinct and separate from the people-nation, that is, without feeling the elementary passions of the people, understanding them and therefore explaining and justifying them in the particular historical situation and dialectically connecting to the laws of history and to a superior conception of the world, scientifically and coherently elaborated i.e. knowledge. One cannot make politics-history without this passion, without this sentimental connection between intellectuals and people-nation (Gramsci, 1971, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, p.418).

21

Andrew Sayer, January 2015