Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Major Sociological Paradigms: Crash Course Sociology #2
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 03. 2017
- This week we introduce sociology’s three major theoretical paradigms, and some of the advantages and disadvantages of each paradigm.
Crash Course is made with Adobe Creative Cloud. Get a free trial here: www.adobe.com/...
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark, Les Aker, Robert Kunz, William McGraw, Jeffrey Thompson, Jason A Saslow, Rizwan Kassim, Eric Prestemon, Malcolm Callis, Steve Marshall, Advait Shinde, Rachel Bright, Kyle Anderson, Ian Dundore, Tim Curwick, Ken Penttinen, Caleb Weeks, Kathrin Janßen, Nathan Taylor, Yana Leonor, Andrei Krishkevich, Brian Thomas Gossett, Chris Peters, Kathy & Tim Philip, Mayumi Maeda, Eric Kitchen, SR Foxley, Justin Zingsheim, Andrea Bareis, Moritz Schmidt, Bader AlGhamdi, Jessica Wode, Daniel Baulig, Jirat
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
Structural Functionalism: 4:34
Conflict Theory: 6:22
Comparing the Two MACRO Theories: 7:29
Symbolic Interaction: 7:36
Manifest and Latent Functions: 5:04
Social Dysfunctions: 5:29
Thank you!
a QUEEN. I bow down to you. thank you so much!
OMG THANK YOU THIS HELPED MAKE NOTES SOOOO MUCH EASIERRR
MUCH LOVEEE AND APPRECIATION
Let's be real, sociology is unpopular in America bc we have such a hard-on for individualism that we can't possibly ever admit that we're influenced by the social structures, traditions and histories of our society. I really don't care whether sociology is a hard science or a soft science or a humanity. The point is we need to ask these questions about our society and use the most effective methods we have to test them, because the public policy we create and the major decisions we make affect people on a societal level. To throw your hands up and say we can't know and that literally an entire discipline of people are all wrong is so stupid. The funniest thing is that a lot of people making these critiques seem to think that social inequalities are inherent and have always been there... which is exactly what a sociologist would predict would happen in a society that prides individuality and self-determination above all else.
Krish Lingala "hard-on for individualism"
I'm using that for now on
++
Krish Lingala I'm reading "The Narcissism Epidemic" and u should too.
thanks for the recommendation! I've heard of it, but it fell off my radar, so i'll add it to the list
Best comment. Well said, Krish.
Thanks to sociology I will finally understand why there's so much hatred in the comment section :D
"People are mean."
Answer: a)feminists b)islamists c)marxists d)all of the above
I have a few answers...
***** You can agree or not with Karl Marx's predictions and paradigms, I am personally not a Marxist or a socialist, but I believe that we must study them anyway because they have just influenced lots of people's beliefs during the last 150 years and it is important to understand why people think what they think and contemplate different perspectives to become a more open minded person.
Thanks ;)
Echo Chambers ... that's why
I hated my sociology class when I was in Undergrad, because I felt like I wasn't learning anything in class. This video series makes up for that, and is making me genuinely interested in studying sociology further!
Am I the only one who doesn't give a damn about whether sociology is a science or not debate and just want to learn interesting stuff about human beings?
+ nah. me too.
Carlos Martínez Me too. It is an interesting debate (what kind of knowledge social sciences can provide us; what are the differences with other disciplines like physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), but that is a discussion for a Philosophy of Science course.
Ignore them. They're just crying out for attention.
Physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and geology are natural sciences. Psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, political science, and geography are social sciences. Math, logic, theoretical computer science, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, statistics, information theory, and theoretical linguistics are formal sciences.
Hakkapeliitta Sorry to burst your tiny little bubble but not everyone agrees with you, snowflake.
i think crash course Law would be very helpful for common people
Which though? US law? British common-law (which influences the legal systems of the US, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa and dozens of smaller countries)? Some other legal system?
@@thetruerift It's usually taught in a more general form that applies to most countries. However a more specific law course for USA citizens would be great.
@@footage6402 yeah but Crash Course isn't for US citizens specifically
@@peter-peterpumpkineater4982 If they were to make it they'd make it for US law though, that's where they're from and most of their viewers are coming from.
@@footage6402 You sure about that? Cause the path they take with the type of videos they upload says otherwise
The amount of people trying to discredit an entire branch of study because it's inconvenient to their world view is legitimately scary.
thec4ke sociology is actually wonderful and opens up a new understanding on how we are different and same from one another from the smallest to the largest scale and so much more about groups of people, culture etc. I just don't get it why people say it is not science have you guys not have sociology as a subject in school? Plus There are sooo many branches of science, some they might have not been aware of. Dor a country that think they are the best in everything then explain to me why half of the population does not know that the sun is a star? Why most or i guess less than half of the population thinks that high school is the greatest educational degree they can get?
Ps sorry if i have a wrong grammar
thec4ke The reasons for this are simple, people don't understand the subject they just see it from the outside/superficial perspective which is one dominated by leftist social justice movements and feminists.
Hakkapeliitta cumstained shitburger says wha?
***** Science isn't a special right. Because sociology doesn't fit into your narrow elitist academic narrrow view doesn't discount it as science, pleb.
Science is narrowing and elitist by design. If it wasn't, we'd still be considering phlogiston and flat earth theory somewhere other than the bowels of the internet.
Speaking of manifest and latent functions, I always remember this teacher while I was getting my Sociology major using college as a good example. Manifestly, it provided society with the reproduction of high-level education and individuals with tools for social mobility and work, but also latently univesrsity was one of the biggest match-making instutions in society, regarding startistics of how many people with college-level education met their spouses during college.
I'm studying communism, so I can get good marx
I hate you for that pun
Get out
We*
😂👍
Num Num Tasty you really cracked me up
04:10 There are three theoretical paradigms of sociology:
1. structural functionalism
2. conflict theory and
3. symbolic interactionism
I never thought sociology could be this interesting, I'm honestly amazed. Thanks for this :)
Great video! However if I were to change one thing is the speed at which information is being delivered this may sound counter-intuitive but the slower you are the more information one will be able to receive. Although what you say is very interesting and you obviously have a passion for the subject the viewer doesn't have any time to reflect our think about these new concepts being thrown at them.
Blue Penguin I understand that it's called a crash course but many other series on this channel understood the need to (if not during the entire video at least during quotes or key ideas) slow down and pace out the information in a way that is more comprehensive to the viewer.
Awesome suggestion but videos tend to be filmed in advance and then shown to us. I think.
I believe CZcams has a function to slow videos down or speed them up, so that might work for you.
they can rewind
but it's really annoying now that I watch it several times
Observation: Most viewers don't write any comments (~95%), but of those who do comment, the majority of the most liked comments tend to express a moral claim or idea with a negative tone: "I do not like" "this is why things are bad" "can't wait for this bad thing to happen". Also, in other videos (particularly math videos that pose questions to viewers) comments tend to be more informative and thoughtful.
Sociological Question: Are these observations universal or only seen in US viewers, western viewers, eastern viewers? If the moral expressions in the comment sections differ based on geography, country, or language, then why? What sociological forces are at play that see most viewers to not comment compel a small minority to comment in such characteristic ways?
Perhaps a structural functionalist may say that such a comment section serves a function so that society may continue to operate (or perhaps it is a dysfunction). A conflict theorist would say that comment sections can get ugly due to some scarce resource in said society (the scarce resource of reason? of justice?). A symbolic interactionist would say that to make a comment is to engage in the very thing we wish to study and in doing so we create what it means to comment.
this video introduced a new word to me: verstehen.. what sociological factors would make it almost a certainty that this term will not catch on with the same popularity as other terms such as "quantum" or "Schwartzchild radius"?
questions questions.. so many questions..
+
DestinyQx +++
You're awesome.
so smart wow blown away
The tendencies in the comments are definitely universal although some comments might be influenced by culture. (From my experience scrolling through CZcams comments in different languages and various genres)
And I imagine that the types of comments posted on different videos are influenced by the posts already made on the video. (If you see people posting funny comments then you're more likely to also post a funny comment)
What do you think, Destiny?
A long-awaited sociology addition to the incredible Crash Course series, and it doesn't disappoint. Perfect 10-minute intro in the fast Crash course style with wonderful visuals, cool studio in the background and of course, perfect presentation from the teacher. I teach A-level sociology and am so happy this amazing subject is now Crash Course'd.
Thank you for providing this series, Nicole. I think Sociology helps us to gain crucial insights about ever changing trends and sometimes confusing, but always intriguing, social attitudes. It's a pleasure to learn from someone who loves what they do.
I'm studying political science and I loveeee it. I have been thinking about doing my masters degree in political sociology, so tomorrow I will go to my first sociology course. I am very excited, and this series has helped me fall even more in lve with this social science. Thank you, the videos are wonderful!
I can't under stand why there are so many hate comments...this video was very helpful...full of information. Yes the speaker's speech is a bit fast but that can be fixed by putting the playback at 0.75×
i am personally of the belief that sociology is a science, but at the end of the day, does it matter? there are lots of series here that aren't hard sciences, CC has made videos on world history, literature, mythology, hell, even games. i mean, i can think of far less people who bash psychology as a pseudoscience even though it has historically been similarly dismissed; most people see the value in it. the fact is, knowledge is valuable and all fields help to contribute a new way of considering the world. history puts our current world in perspective, chemistry lets people think of the world in the context of universal relationships between the things that make up everything. and sociology lets us think about society as a system of human behaviour and what these behaviours mean.
basically, it's such a fallacy to a)dismiss something that you don't agree with as not a science because you don't agree with some of its conclusions (yes the professional world is gendered, yes, poverty follows specific patterns that perpetuate an often racially biased criminal justice system, yes, people still have very, very shittty beliefs about these things). that's like people saying science is wrong and climate change isn't real and dinosaurs didn't have feathers and evolution is a conspiracy. and b) to dismiss things that aren't a hard science as having less intrinsic value than things that are irrefutably science as if understanding the laws of the universe is any more applicable than understanding the way humans behave. both have their place. yes, we want to get to mars, but we also want to make sure that once we get there humans are going to get along
Here we have a rare breed; this is the man, the woman, the attack helicopter, who forms a complete argument. They point out and attempt to solve issues with their own and others' arguments. I probably don't even agree with at least some of the statement that was made, but wow. Hats off to you. **claps**
i don't want to argue with you and i hardly reply to replies... but isn't this what sociology does? sociology has many paradigms that are alternate explanations for a phenomenon. why is robbing a bank wrong? because it's illegal (legal explanations of crime)? because it causes harm (interactionist schools of thought)? because it disrupts the social order of work for material gain (conflict theory)?there are large bodies of research on all these schools of thought, but due to the nature of sociology, with it being a meta science (an explanation of society is bound to be influenced by the society that creates the explanation) it has to be subjective. it's nothing new. medical fields are just as subjective as to what the best form of medicine would be, and also has different philosophies surrounding healing (is the goal to restore perfect health or to make improvements to someone's health to be better functioning? what is the standard for health and why? should you treat the ailment's symptoms to make it easier on the patient or find the root cause? as you might imagine, these questions get answered differently for different situations.)
i also think you might misunderstand what i mean by conclusions in this case. in my view, sociological explanations are the conclusions themselves. many people disagree that feminism is a valid lens through which you should analyze human behaviour. others disagree that marxism and conflict theory should be used to explain anything other than the economic structures. some, still can disagree with the more nitty gritty theories out there. some believe that morality exists regardless of whatever legal structures are there to regulate it, and others view the law as morality put into writing.
at the same time, there are other facets of the idea of "sociological conclusions" and they're as much based on scientific study as any other science. For example, men and women are socialized differently in development because most societies are gendered. these things can and do have an effect on career trajectories. Another example, black americans are more at risk for cardiovascular disease than white counterparts, largely due, not to genetics, but social strain. another conclusion, in recent years, while the proportion of people who are religious have gone down, those who are religious exhibit a higher level of religiosity than past generations.
some people may find these issues contentious, but sociology aims to 1. find phenomena and 2. explain it.
how do you think sociologists come to conclusions?
*philosophy
also, i'd like to correct myself. i don't think you misunderstand "conclusions" i think you misunderstand sociology
because it's this big interdisciplinary thing that aims to explain sociological phenomena using philosophy, psychology, medicine, biology, etc. it's very heavily reliant on statistics. like it's the number one thing. how does the world divide and group people? well, to find out you need data from the census in different countries, from media reports, even from the usage of words in different languages to group things like men and women. it's very data based. the problem i can see is that specific experiments of cause and effect are very difficult to measure because it's hard to take society out of the things tested and the interpreter's intentions.
sorry if this comes across as hostile, but i think a lot of people misunderstand sociology as something more flimsy and based on subjectivity, when really it's the only field that recognizes its subjectivity
I feel like every one of these videos are a bomb, and one day you're going to mention feminism or racism in one and the comments section will explode.
Racism! Institutional biases! Feminism! Gender roles! Paaaaatriarchy!
*hides in the bushes to see if he's attracted the wild dumbass*
you idiot. She just did.
"Bombs" are a necessary part of academia. Learning is, at its core, cognitive dissonance, which tends toward controversy as people resist, accommodate, or assimilate new information.
To be honest, both are necessary for knowledge to grow. Some subjects have to be brought up regardless of how controversial it is, and controversial subject also necessitate criticism.
Phrozenflame500 That's exactly how I feel. There's no way this series doesn't face an episode that gets like, 60% dislikes.
Loving this so far- Doing sociology at GCSE and hope to go right up to uni. Might I also point out how happy I am to see that Sansa pop on the iron throne in the background it honestly made my day.
Who else is here because of their college sociology course?
So many things in this video would fit perfectly in a (MUCH NEEDED) Crash Course Epistemology.
Great episode, keep it up. :)
epistemology was covered in philosophy !!
yeah, but not nearly enough to my taste :P
(and lots of people in the comments seem to need more of it as well...)
+
YESSSSSS
I found their logic and epistemology stuff to also be lacking. Maybe they were going to do logic course after philosophy but it ended up turning into computer science course.
Im the only one thinking that she speak a liiiitle bit too fast?. Excelent work tho.
@@Vividlyvanilla *does
No she does not
There's a speed setting if you click on the gear in the lower-right, then click "Playback Speed," which will allow you to slow her down to about 75% speed if you need it! Also, you can use closed captions if you're a faster reader than a listener! Hope this helps!
Yes. I have watched other Crash Courses episodes and they speak at a more moderate pace. Easier to catch.
@amin liaee He's not talking about the content itself, but the way in which it's presented. She talks really fast, much faster than normal conversational speed. It makes it really hard for some folks, especially non-native English speakers, to understand what she's saying. It's got nothing to do with it being a crash course or not, it's just bad presentation.
Can we have Crash Course: Jurisprudence, International Relations, Literary Criticism or even Creative Writing next time? :D
I love all of these suggestions. I'd add Linguistics to the list.
Maybe they could have the guy from NativLang be the host!
Sounds interesting, but, due to that smiley face... (as in this ":D")
[insert picture of Philip Fry, from Futurama, squinting here]
I can't tell if Terence is serious but joyful...or just joking.
Serious but joyful of course. Pun not intended.
CREATIVE WRITING!!! *louder for the backkkk
I want to major in sociology in college..I'm watching these vids to get a better understanding of what it is and just different stuff that has to do with society as a whole..it really interests me and even if I dont major in it in college it would still be cool to have so basic knowledge of this stuff and have notes on it 🙂
funny that scrolling through the comments i haven't seen a single one stating that sociology is not a science, but just a bunch of people complaining about them! w la figaaaaaaaaaaaa
Ha! Same, though maybe they got buried by all the people saying otherwise. Who knows?
maybe because those bastard is not interested at sociology at all
I don’t go to school or study sociology, i’m just watching these and learning this for a clearer understanding of society and its sociological functions and dysfunctions.
Very interesting, but kind of fast... Please pause more after sentences concluding one explanation. It feels, as if I watched a video in 1,5x velocity (I double checked, it's the default option ;) )
Please keep up the good work CrashCourse-Team :D
There is a pause button...
@@jonathandonley3299 There are also penquins, pepperoni and puppies.
Thank you for this video. More clear and structured than my collective 2 hours of lectures about Sociological Perspective! 💗
The comments seem weird to me. Sociology was one of my favorite classes in my undergrad the irony was that my professor was a hard core conservative who was willing to debate.
Those were some of my favorite conversations because we were cordial and entertaining. Sometimes I won, sometimes he did but MOST IMPORTANTLY we both walked away with a new perspective.
There are following macro-sociological paradigms (in the order of chronological appearance):
1) Structural functionalism, a paradigm that divides society into social institutes which are a set of norms defining social interactions. Norms control the behaviour of human individuals and individuals themselves have two natures inside them (personal nature and social nature, the second one is always defeating and engulfing the first one). Therefore societal changes happen because the functions of some social institutes begin to fail to satisfy the needs of society. Structural functionalism believes in determinism, or that society through the net of social institutes manipulates and controls individuals and personal freedom is an illusion of ignorance.
2) Marxism. Marxism is a paradigm which believes any society to be an ever-moving historical organism of two levels (the basis and the superstructure). The basis contains the level of technological and scientific development (means of production) and the interaction between large groups of people (classes). Classes are constantly in a struggle or conflict and the struggle of classes result in a sort of stability, a set of mutual norms that helps different people to coexist without killing each other. The superstructure is established upon the basis like the building's roof is based upon the foundation ot the building. The superstructure contains cultural, social, juridical and economic life of the society. The basis+the superstructure are called formation. The formations emerge, develop and die during historical development of humankind. There are 6 formations in marxism - primitive-communal formation, 'asiatic'(or state-based) formation, slave-owning formation, feudal formation, capitalist formation and communist formation. Each formation has its own peculiar types of culture. economics, class struggle and etc. The periods of domination of each formation in history last for centuries and even thousands of years. Is there a place for human freedom in marxism? There is and isn't at the same time. An individual can't be free from the laws of historical development (marxist call 'laws' all theory I described above) but he or she can be perfectly free to choose any side of the class struggle. So there is no major freedom of will (in the sense that humans do not control the major outcome of the class struggle or the future of the society as a whole) but there is minor freedom of choice (one can embrace of reject marxism, one can embrace or reject the laws of societal development and thus to hasten or postpone the coming of the next formation).
3) Weberian sociology or comprehensive sociology. Max Weber believed the society to be the aggregation of individuals. Each individual has its goals and participates in four kinds of social interactions (sorry I don't know their proper scientific names in English so I will name them myself): ritualistic or traditional interaction, affective or emotional interaction, rational goal interaction and rational value interaction. Each kind of social interaction changes the structure of society creating tendencies and values which emerge and disappear in time. So for Max Weber there are no social laws, any such laws are fictional because human freedom is real (freedom of will and freedom of choice).
4) Conflict theory, or 'conflictology' (in some languages) is a marxism-based paradigm which also believes society to be ever-developing organism but differs greatly from marxism in the views upon its structure. Conflict theorists think that they is no strict division between basis and superstructure and that technological development ot the industrial society sets a frame of interpersonal and intergroup conflicts which are the result of human need of domination and the human craving towards appreciation. Class structure does not cause (or so conflict theorists believe) the conflict but provides the frame for it. Thus both the freedom of will and the freedom of choice are present here but the freedom of will has its limits (set by tech-development and the class structure) but the freedom of choice has no limit.
You really managed to unpack a lot of information in an impressively didactic fashion. Well done!
Hi sweeney, I am a sociology major from the University of Indonesia, thank you for providing this very interesting and useful content, I use it to learn!
Well, I think I'm just going to avoid the comment section on this series... I'm looking forward to seeing more episodes though!
wow, reading the comments I can assume that sociology is realy unpopular i America. And guys - it is science...but not like the "nature" sciences.
ukulele177 like the creationist view of science
It involves studying society, fluid beliefs, and uncomfortable flaws. Amerika is a place that loves to stick its fingers in its ears, gouge out its eyes, and cut of its nose.
JustTo Watch I think they believe science means "credible with Numbers." So if something they believe really hard in has numbers, 'it's a science!'
if they want numbers, just wait until they see my SPSS database.
Does statistics count as "numbers" in this context?
I totally love that y'all waited until after three election to do this series. This will help monumentally with those of us who have social anxiety.
LOVE YOU, CRASH COURSE!
Please continue this series, I'm learning so much! Dam PBS budget cuts!
I quite enjoyed the video.
This was actually a really good review of about 2 weeks of that class I used to barely go to back when I studied Psych as a major on my first college try.
Literally, this just saved me from reading a 46 page article about these paradigms! Thank you!
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the
systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
natural world through observation and experiment.
Sounds like sociology is a science then.
Good luck guys ^^ love these talks and am thrilled to get a crash course in sociology for my lunch breaks :) Try and ignore the narrow-minded haters in the comments. This is interesting and important information and theory for us!
When I sign out of my account, suddenly all the comments I made discussing the flaws of sociological research and literature and discussing possible improvements are invisible, but all of the comments I made defending crash course from trolls are still around of course.
Are you being naughty crash course ',:~)
Now m in love with this sociologist!! How can she b d most talented sociologist with teaching skills!! Every concept she is explaining is going straight n deep into my Heart!! 💓 😍😍😍
I love you. going into a sociology exam tomorrow knowing absolutely nothing, thank you for the chance to at leat pass it.
How is Sociology not a science when it is in fact a systematized body of knowledge, which is what science is by definition. Why do we even bother setting boundaries and stigma to what certain types of knowledge is and what other people want to learn about? Jeez.
The reason that we categorize 'hard' and 'soft' sciences could probably be explained by sociology...
It's not science because most of the conclusions drawn from sociology cannot be ethically tested using the scientific method. See the "The Stanford Prison Experiment" as an example.
Not exactly, every scienze is a systematized body of knowledge *based on the empirical method.*
And yes, basically the distinction is that hard sciences are exact sciences and soft sciences are not.
*Note:* exact sciences are the ones capable to produce results and predictions with *quantitative expressions.*
Von Carolino so Angelology is a science since it can be defined as a systematiced body of knowledge? and business management?
That's an amusing response - claim sociology is not a science, then reference a psychology experiment...
People saying that this is "not a science" I often wonder what they mean. I assume they mean that its not "hard" science capable of producing results and predictions with quantitative expressions. If so I understand what you mean but, what we mean by "science" must not have a shared definition because I believe criticizing sociology as a whole for this would be similar to criticizing math for being axiomatic. What would you instead propose the study of how people interact be called if not a "science"?
And aren't the Physical Sciences essentially dependent on observation themselves to produce results (with experimentation as a means of enhancement to observation), meaning that the most recent or updated observation takes the "truth" badge?
Meanwhile: czcams.com/video/DbTt_ySTjaY/video.html&lc=z13mddqzqtjhjh4kj23qdzzhymnqtzauj.1490056373691313
They mean they only understand/have been taught a simplistic version of positivism or logical positivism in school.
It's a LOT simpler than you or anyone else ^ above ^ is trying to make it: Science doesn't need conjectural Definitions built on definitions built on other definitions to *exist* . Science would still **mean** the same exact thing to a bunch of equally evolved blue silicon based lifeforms 10,000 lightyears away. Sociology would not because the entirely of it exists in slippery Definitions that are *intentionally* vague and language-coercing
One way of looking at a "Hard science" is physics. If a ball is dropped from the table, it will fall to earth. The laws of physics are well defined, and will predict the ball's movement every time you drop it, without fail, if conditions stay the same.
Sosiology, however, has to deal with people. And people are not always rational or consistent by default. If you try to reduce human choicemaking to clear matematical laws, you will encounter a problem: Humans will do different things even if you reproduce the exact circumstances.
This does not mean that sosiology is not science. Its just that its more a science of categorizing approximations and empirical knowledge than figuring out exact "black and white" truths.
I'm really enjoying these videos. Thanks for making such awesome content! As a biology trained person working outside of my degree, it's great to learn a bit about subjects I know nothing about. When we discuss education creating better, more well-rounded people, this certainly seems like the most cost effective way to do it. Also, I *love* the pacing that Nicole manages. It's very Greenish. Comprehensible, clear, and at a pace that holds my attention.
Thanks for these crash courses! I’m taking a introduction to sociology college class next week, and I’m sooo going to binge-watch these! ❤️❤️❤️
don't worry everyone the guys who don't like it will eventually leave after a few episodes we'll be all good
It's time to read some ''sociology isn't a science'' comments
ha!
Even if you aren't interested in the intense study of this subject, I find it advantageous to learn it for practical matters. For instance, learning about various paradigms can serve as a tool for reading people in real time, depending on persistent practice of course. This tool can most always help direct you towards matters of the your favor, and if not that, then it's always useful to be more conscious of the people you are living with.
I'm taking a sociology class at my high school next year. So excited! :)
Great video. Would be way better if you speak slower since it would benefit non-english speaker
Set speed to .75
I really love the theme for this series.
sociology needs to be a requirement middle school through and on to college because people are so lacking in understanding society as a whole to question things it helps the critical thinking skills
So there is no such thing as BEING a functionalist or a symbolic interactionist? Which approach you take depends on what you are researching? Someone please help, been stuck on this from the first day since I began studying for my GCSE sociology
I dont know i am bored i am going to make a dad joke
Dad:what kind of music do elfs listen to
Me:i dont know
Dad:wrap music
Haha i like that joke but its more for Christmas but i still like it
WHERE IS MYY THOOOUGHT BUUUUUBBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE??
Maytane Winner asking the real questions.
Michael Raymond haha
When it is said that Sociology is not scientific, it is not said so to demean the branch of study in any way. It just means that sociology can not be studied in a scientific manner as different societies have different people with different circumstances and views of their own and no formula can be devised enough to come to conclusions in the subject. This is called the interpretevist view. The fact that there is so much debate abt whether it is a science or not only shows how we as a society have put all the sciences on a pedestal as compared to other branches of equally important and fascinating subjects.
I’m so so excited to start my Bachelors degree in Sociology !!
Bruh ya'll were so excited when the trailer for this came out and now everyone's just hating like I don't get it
Never thought I'd see a dbz ball in a crashcourse video...
I'm jealous of all the people who are gonna take sociology after you guys are way into or finished with this lol. Such a good way to review lecture material!
This is so amazing. I can't believe that Crash Course is making such complex ideas available in such a simple and accessible format! Thanks a ton crash course!
You guys should slow down a bit in my opinion. Whats the rush? You don't think we have an attention span? I get that you want to appeal to a large audience with shorter videos but at this rate you are compromising the quality a lot. Slow down so that the viewer can absorb what you just said before you move on to the next point. This was quite stressful to watch to be honest.
It fits CZcams's algorithm better and using a uniform length for videos makes the job easier
Use crash course videos as a beginners or a general guide to a subject
You can slow the video speed.
you can also click on "pause" and take your time to reflect on the idea beefore following... I think they don't want to discourage people of wathcning the video because of the length... The solution for you is possible without discouraging most of people to watch.
Hey there, thank you so much as usual for such great courses and classes, I followed or following many of them.
Elsewhere there is usually someone who’s doing a written resume in the comments, but wouldn’t it be possible/useful to leave a link to download the script or even something more simple to visualize the concepts?
I loved Sociology when I was taught it but I feel like this video here explains this stuff way more clearly than I was ever told it. Like they basically just threw us into Functionalism vs. Marxism (and to a lesser extent Feminism and Race Conflict)... I briefly remember stuff about Macro vs. Micro and Interactionsts but that was told to us later and I used to sort of know when to correctly use the terms without understanding why it being a macro approach was even relevant.
This connects the dots together way more clearly so thank you!!
wait lmao my biology teacher used to play these videos in class and apparently the author of 'Looking For Alaska', my favorite book is also in this channel
THANK YOU FOR THIS GREAT VIDEO! You all are doing a great job; this is very informative yet concise and she is a great speaker.
MUCH LOVE!
P.S. SOCIOLOGY IS RAD.
when she said " friend or food" good God I lost it
this has helped me so much with my assignment! Thank you @crashcourse :)
It's funny how most of the comment section is now people complaining about those who would complain about sociology not being a science. I haven't seen any of those other comments, so chill guys - I'm pretty sure those who come here are here to learn, not to bash the discipline.
Unless you want to discuss a way to explain why people don't regard sociology as a science and measure how people's conception of sociology differs across societies and how each society's cultural and historical specificity influence the way people view sociology, in which case I'm all up for it. I'm always up for doing sociological research, no matter the scale.
The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles
Ayy, they said it!!
did you just talk about science needing different lenses and then refer to a telescope and a microscope
that is one subtle pun
I had fun watching this 😊 Thank you for making these videos accessible to a wide audience 💛
Given these theories, do they work also for a society of animals? Intelligent animals have society where they interact, however not clear they put meaning on object, or division of labor, and conflict seems mostly biologically driven.
Sociology: “A dog can be friend or food.”
Me: Friend. Society has agreed on friend and friend only.😭😂
I learn more from this than my prof, yikes.
Marx was not actually the first conflict theorist, that would be Machiavelli. He argued in the discourses on Livy that society is defined by conflict between individuals and classes. Each group perusing it's own self interest ensures that all groups gain some of their interests. Specifically; the plebians of Rome fought to preserve liberty while the opposing senate represented a stabilizing influence and the desires of the consuls for glory created an impetus for expansion and improvement, which was also tempered by the Commons and the Senate.
This is what we are going over in my class so thanks for the help
2:32 that dragon ball z easter egg though
I find her strangely attrective. And the other thought that keeps forcing itself on me: She looks like she is wearing a long blondwig on top of her black haired buzzcut.
I know, important stuff.
As I can see it,
Symbolic Interactionism: Members of a family, who are different individuals trying to get along with each other. (Most of the time members of a family get along well regardless of family's inner conflicts).
Conflict Theory: Families with different interests trying to survive & compete with other families. (Always a family come up with their own bubble to favour their own).
Structural Functionalism: The society or the governance which families & individuals are operating under. A well oiled, yet imperfect (never ever be perfect), machine.
I'm not a "feminist" by any means, but even I can see the importance and value of this science. It's really interesting and I'm glad CC is doing a series on it.
what does feminism have to do with appreciating sociology? and are you sure you aren't a feminist by its basic definition?
Thank you for this course, it's really interesting to watch! Sometimes, it's a little hard to follow you, as a non-native English speaker. Your speech is a bit too fast for me :( Will keep on watching though!
"Raw facts" are theory laden. What is a 5% unemployment rate? It's the number of people who are not working, but looking for a job, divided by the number of people who have a job plus the number of people who meet the definition of unemployed. Why is that? What theory led to that calculation? Even in physics, raw facts are built off of theory, not necessarily "simple concepts."
Thank you professor
Macro and micro plus symbolic interaction remind me of my favourite Crash Course (Economics). Symbolic interaction reminds me of how paper or metal with numbers on it is money because that's what we decided money would be.
So, we know that chom coms are yellow fruits with loads of potassium bc we've agreed on that meaning? Kewl.
THOUGHT BUBLE???!!!!!! WHERE IS THOUGHT BUBLE?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S NOT A CRASH COURSE WITHOUT THOUGHT BUBLE!!!!!!
NNNNIIIIICCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!! EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm absolutely loving this series; and I learned that there exists a no holds barred no quarter given knock down drag out choke rivers with the dead WAR over the subject itself!
I see a lot of complaining in the comment section about people saying sociology is not a science. These people need to understand why it is indeed not a science. It is a pseudo science. It starts with a conclusion and then tries to prove it. Science starts with a conclusion and tries to disprove it. This is the difference between the two. Stratification paradigms very easily devolve into conspiracy theories, most sociologists have very little interest in disproving their own theories, and their rabbit hole is never ending because they can always beg the question, “why?”.
"All of these lenses are important and, yes, necessary for the investigation of sociological questions."
This claim isn't so much supported as it is just asserted. It's entirely possible that certain "lenses", to use your metaphor, give you a completely distorted and inaccurate view of things. Various scientific fields may have different models that they use to describe reality, but their claims ultimately are either true or false.
A sufficiently complex earth-centric model of the solar system may give you accurate predictions from the vantage point of earth, but that doesn't mean it accurately describes reality. The Earth is not fixed at the center of the solar system.
It's possible that there is actually no redeeming value in certain sociological frameworks. They may be entirely false. That's a possibility we should be open to.
You cannot not have lenses.
Every time you try to draw conclusions from a set of data (i.e. "interpreting it"), and even more: every time you even ask questions to get your data, you're guided by certain paradigmatic assumptions. There is no such thing as "just data", except maybe for very basic things like specific actions of one individual. Even that example with unemployment rates has already been through various stages of assumptions - how to get to such a number is not a trivial process. You may describe "John is waving his hand at Jane" as a fact, but that's not really leading you anywhere.
Sociology is a social science. It deals with human beings who, for all purposes, are independently acting individuals. There are no universal laws regarding human behaviour; looking at it from various viewpoints and choosing the "lens" that is best suited to our specific question, is the next best thing.
"Lenses", i.e. paradigms, are tools. They give you a framework to work with. For other questions, you should choose a different framework. With them, you can draw conclusions from your data, make "predictions" (as much as those are possible with human behaviour), and explain the world as it is.
varana312 I don't know that I disagree with you. Do you consider our comments to be in conflict?
That's exactly what I said: "A sufficiently complex earth-centric model of the solar system may give you accurate predictions from the vantage point of earth"
Paul Kennedy You're subscribed to a particular epistemology about the nature and existence of reality. Many scientists are pragmatists, or coherentists, or even instrumentalists. To take the last view as an example, instrumentalists take scientific theories to not literally describe reality, and instead are just instruments for making predictions. Take an example from quantum physics. Schrödinger's equations describing the randomness inherent in quantum particles can be interpreted as a wave particle duality, or just as equally as pilot wave theory. This means that the predictions can be explained in two different ways, and since we can't make falsifiable predictions to differentiate the two at this time we have no good reasons to pick one or the other. These frameworks for looking at quantum theory help physicists ask new questions, and so using both lenses can help with their work
Paul Kennedy -Enter relativism
"THEY TOOK OUR JERBS"
Did anyone else find the sound effects INCREDIBLY distracting? Especially the almost tweet-like sound when a new term was introduced. I didn't take in anything that was being said during/immediately after this sound each time it was used.
Otherwise, I'm quite enjoying the series so far. Looking forward to what we'll learn next! :)
I have been waiting for Crash Course to do a series of sociology and I have not been disappointed...
She was speaking so fast and I am so high that I had to watch this at 0.5 speed lol
Was it really necessary to say that?
@@madeleinemackintosh1595 oh frick off mackintosh
"What's up with society, exactly"? wow, what an eloquent introduction lol
I love Crash Course and I'm really glad that this course has started. I study sociological science in Brazil and I'm excited to gather some friends, translate the video and add portuguese subtitles to it! :)
Thanks, CC!
It's interesting how Sociological Paradigms compliment each other, and the existence of one does *not* pose an existential crisis to the other; as you can see society as a social structure, organized, where the main driver is conflict behind the creation of these structures, and symbolic interactionism helps us understand how people interact beneath these larger visions.
Whereas in say, Physics, the emergence of a new paradigm typically cause a conflict with an old one, as there can only really be 'one' true way of understanding how an atom work; there is no room for subjective or personal preference. The emergence of a new paradigm of theory, ala explanation, instantly requires you to figure out which is true, the new or the old one.
Calling them paradigms might be a bit misleading, as a sociologist could use all three depending on the situation, whereas a physicist mainly has to choose a single paradigm to adhere to.