Feel like everyone is against this woman and sociology because it talks on touchy things no one wants to take the blame for or try to understand so they are just going to make fun of it and her for no earthly reason- every crash course video is fast and while some science measures space and cloning things that are incredible and amazing but not quite hitting home. Sociology talks about racism, sexism, stereotypes and where things like this and more come from and how we can change thinking. Like if that isn't a huge deal to you then maybe your not impacted or you just don't care but when sociology is in the right hands you can change and do so much its unthinkable to think people without any of these skills or this knowledge could comment
Shea Loucks isn’t that with everything not just sociology or psychology but any info? I don’t think a crash course video is top of the political platforms
Where was this series during my undergrad years?! It's ok. Now I use them when I tutor undergrads 😅. Thank you for your great content that never disappoints, Crash Course Team.
I love that we're this far in and still bringing up the science/not science. As a double major in both sociology and environmental science, I have no trouble calling sociology a science. There's a lot of social factors driving the argument, but in the end, trying to invalidate sociology is largely meaningless. If we only focused on knowledge from "hard sciences" without also bringing in "soft science" knowledge, we wouldn't get very far.
I hope you meant "some douchebags". I study chemistry myself and know of a lot of natural science students that are aware of sociology as a science. But I get what you want to say and I guess you're right.
+aristide colbrant Oh it's a science all right -- just the most inaccurate and misleading of them all. And it will remain that way until a computational model of the brain is created that can accurately describe all human behavior. I give that about half a century for a single brain simulation, and then a bit over a century to compute mini-societies to see how people interact. To clarify: a key aspect of science is variables. If you cannot control variables, then you cannot do accurate science. Humans are notoriously difficult to predict because of just how many variables are prevalent in someone's life. That's why any science based on human behavior is near-impossible to get accurate results.
+ Bose-Einstein I'd say it's the most difficult science. Because yeah, you can't really study isolated phenomena in humans. Which is why you should absolutely take every study with a grain of salt. This goes for medicine too, tho.
I feel like I don't know enough about sociology to participate in the "is sociology a scientific discipline" discussion. And those who participated doesn't seem to care enough to educate us. I guess being condescending is just much more satisfying.
Go subscribe to a sociological journal, read some of the sociological literature and decide for yourself if the methodology is adequate for you to consider it a science, anything anyone tells you will be so skewed in favour of their position it's useless (sorry I can't be more helpful).
My knowledge on the subject is like a 12 year old's knowledge regarding theoretical physics. Neither me or the 12 year old can read the journals and understand them adequately to make judgement. Which is why I don't pass judgement and trust those who know better. All I have is basic critical thinking to know if an argument is flawed. Skewed they may be, at least I can ask questions and get an answer and approach the truth.
I do want to know enough. But the TLDR is clearly not enough. No offence. I can see the political bias may affect data interpretations. I also agree that social studies can be easily abused as excuses to marginalise people. But let me play devil's avocate for a moment. Isn't that a weakness to all science? How palaeontologists once thought dinosaurs looks like lizards. Sigmund Freud thought everything is about sex. Science is a self-correcting process. Past mistakes shouldn't discredit it, no? So I guess sociology is as much a science as psychology is or was? (It's a genuine question i'd like to know)
YoungTheFish Yes, it is weakness to all sciences. Although science also has approved testing methods, data and a cold glass of skepicism as counter measures. The problem with psychology, finances, sociology (even maybe nutrition) and why there is reluctance in giving it the science label is ultimately because of the numbers of unexplained/unknown variables and how it's much harder to reduce them like you can in a lab with the *hard sciences.* People find that we don't know enough about these things to draw emperical knowledge or to distinguish it from nonsense caused by unknown variables. That is why there is an urge to stress that point. If we had AI simulations to conduct large test on population, or even just a good enough system to module the brain, all this would be a different story.
I think I know where I should look into next. Crash Course will probably go into some method of study in sociology. By then I should be able to talk to you guys more on what is right/wrong about it. Thanks guys!
I bet next week's discussion of Marx is going to be SUPER civil and respectful, and the comment section will be devoid of predisposed bias and ignorance of the source material. :D
Sameopet Sociology pisses people off www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/5oaa15/why_do_social_science_theories_tend_to_support/dci35q0/ Obviously, people don't have to be liberal or leftist to study sociology or the social sciences but I wonder about why this is the discipline that gets so much flak.
I expect that will come up when they do an episode that focuses on crime and social deviancy. Anomie is really the theory that explains those kinds of things.
+Rob McCune *vilified. I agree, it seems largely unconscious on their part. It would have to be, they often deny the very existence of status quo ideology.
Knight Chime because they're not warriors at all they are afraid of change and anything else that would rouse them from their warm hoggish beds. Their cry of "you can't tell me what to do" should conflict with their political beliefs but doesn't because what they want is whatever the group around them wants, ethical or not. At age 15 they became jaded and cynical because it all was laid out for them; school, career, a family, old age and death, and they never thought to question it or seek anything other than security, sensation or power.
Thank you so much!!! I was studying sociology for exams and I disagreed with Durkheim because I had misunderstood his point (my sociology book sucks). This video explained EVERYTHING so well! I know understand! Thank you soooooo much!
After comparing this to my Sociology classes, I realized that this video ignores many of Durkheim's ideas. So, CrashCourse must be only looking to give an introduction to some concepts; if the viewer wants to really understand the presented subject, he has to go beyond this introduction and look for external resources on it. That said, CrashCourse should provide at least some those resources in their descriptions (like websites, books and articles) in order to help the viewer understand that subject.
"So, CrashCourse must be only looking to give an introduction to some concepts; if the viewer wants to really understand the presented subject, he has to go beyond this introduction and look for external resources on it." Well, duh! That's been the case with ALL their series since DAY ONE!
lol, yeah. crash course: noun. a fast, intensive training in or study of a subject, esp. on the basics there isn't time in 40 nine minute videos to cover ANY subject completely. this is just a survey.
''CrashCourse should provide at least some those resources in their description (like websites, books and articles)'' That's the part I support. The rest of the comment is an obvious fact.
Seth Apex: Why? Marx's insight into the relationship between the structure of economies and the dominant ideologies of a society was invaluable. That's not even mentioning his flushing out of the ramifications of dividing society into wage slaves and the ownership class.
To those who say she is talking too fast : guys use playback speed feature . Content Quality is good . don't you weep like kids just because something is not perfect.
Between this and the mythology series I've just been so stoked to see CC updates lately! :D This is super fascinating, and I'm glad this information is being dispensed in such a broad and yet clear manner. Way to go, guys!
CrashCourse videos are nearly always great. I use them all the time to re-establish my understanding on all sorts of theories. One thing though: why do all the hosts talk so bloody fast? I am sure this is a question you've addressed long ago, and I am sure you're trying to squeeze in as much content in under 10 mins but damn... it makes it really hard to absorb without having to pause and re-listen!
You know what,- one second. I have to go back in other episodes to find her name. NICOLE!- You know what, love all the videos, rarely comment, but Nicole. That coat looks great with those glasses. #NicoleKilledIt
Toxic Bubbles sociology is neither science nor philosophy. This doesn't mean that thinkers like Durkheim and Webber didn't have insightful observation, they did but that's all they were; insightful observation. The discipline itself is generally nonsense.
Clarification: a lot of people are asking questions and becoming conflicted that were clearly answered in previous videos. Whether sociology is a science or philosophy is entirely up to you, just be considerate and kind to others down here in our little digital society, thank you.
Toxic Bubbles to interpret sociology as either science or philosophy is to admit that you don't know what science or philosophy are. Greetings from a philosophy major.
I am a student of sociology And I use to study through ur video which is very helpful, but u speak so fast that I use to watch ur videos in 0.75x speed.🤣 But still ur teaching skills are really fabulous
So if Durkheim were alive today, his Structural Functionalism model would characterize internet trolling as one of the necessary cohesive components, or social facts, in the developed world's societies; not, conversely, as a social dysfunction. As if trolls needed another reason to rationalize their behavior. xP Your videos are always well planned, informative, and thought provoking Nicole. Thank you.
Oh wow, Durkheim. Flashbacks to my social anthropology class. Lots of time spent on his papers on prisons, the state, and politics. Very interesting thoughts, but tricky to translate, so we read a lot of bad English and some French and tried to analyze that.
Before watching this video, I was HIGHLY skeptical of the reference to sociology as a 'science' - at least in practice. Well, I still am. But Durkheim's statistical analysis and concept of 'social fact' - real, observable behaviour really surprised me. I always knew Auguste Comte was incredibly scientific - he wanted sociology to be called 'social physics' and was a positivist - you don't get more 'science-y' than a positivist, but never knew Durkheim came a relatively close second. I guess the problem really started with the infusion of continental philosophy into sociology. Which is to say, I'm an Alan Sokal fan. If you don't know who he is, oh boy! Do look him up! Thank you, Crash Course. Love your computer science series too much.Taught me more about computer architecture than a six-month long semester could.
By all means, stay skeptical until satisfied. Sociology tends to rely heavily on statistics, and a careful understanding of how to properly use statistics. Science is about making predictions based on reasoning or observations. It's about being able to check those predictions, and rejecting them if they fail. Sociology does this. It doesn't mean we understand society, or how societies are going to act in every case, but it still works to make predictions and reject things that are false.
verdatum The problem with people that think that Sociology is not a Science is their lack of knowledge about the discipline. All theories in Sociology must be based on empirical data, they must be falsifiable and they shuold have predictive power, just like any natural science. The BIG difference is that, when your subject of study is Society as a whole, you have to be aware that this structure has influenced you and IS influencing you, so everything you used to describe it comes from the very thing you are trying to describe, every valoration or judgement you have is influenced because you are an agent in the structure. And the thing that makes Sociology very different is that the different agents that conform society behave in a different way outside the structure they conform. You can't isolate them for study so you have to do field work. This contrasts with the metodology of natural Science (a chemical reaction outside the laboratory is the same in any other part of the world) and to make things more complicated the structure is always changing.
Crash Course stated that Sociology is based around peoples subjective realities and perceptions of the world around them. This is flawed. Because by the rules of sociology, any High school student can pickup a sociology text book and cross out half the book and simply say "Not applicable in my reality". Sociology is not a science, it is a sandbox of theories that can be tossed at any time.
The high school student couldn't do this if they were following Durkheim's vision of sociology. Because sociology for Durkheim is meant to study social facts that exist and operate external to any individual and beyond the control of any individual will, any statement of "Not applicable in my reality," will quickly be exposed as absurd. Take the example of Christmas traditions in the video. Individuals cannot just ignore that Christmas and its traditions exist and that it influences people's social behavior. Sociologists would laugh in the face of "Not applicable in my reality," just as much as most people would. Thus, for Durkheim at least, sociology can still have a subject matter, social facts, without explicit appeal to subjectivity. Weber was much more explicit about the importance of subjectivity and individual meanings attached to social action than Durkheim. But for Durkheim, the individual and their subjectivity had a marginal role in his thinking.
Can people just stop criticising the subject in every single video? Don't you people ever get exhausted? If you don't like something harmless, just ignore and move along.
I always find it amazing, that in the US, the word "race" is absolutely normal and acceptable, while in Europe it is not used (except by extreme rightists) since more than 70 years.
Nationality, culture, or heritage. European history involved less racial motivation than in the U.S. and the nations are less diverse, so people don't generally define themselves by it. Races still exist as something more complex than skin color--like Celts or Slavs--but ethnicity, language, and history are the ideas people latch onto.
Hank and the other male presenters talk just as fast, and use the same hand gestures etc... but any time a chick does a video on this channel - queue the hate...
Simon Stacey, there are more than just one variable (gender of speaker) here though. There's the subject, which most people are probably unfamiliar with. This means speaking fast can actually slow down how fast viewers can process information.
So Durkheim was basically one of the earlier scientists who began to notice large scale social constructs and their significance. This Course just keeps getting more and more interesting. And even more interesting, he gave data high priority in his research. It's hard for me to see how his approach wouldn't help Sociology. I can't wait for next week's, though. Class struggle. Putting communism aside, Marx's analysis of society is deeply profound and genius.
sociology is about researching the problems of society, forming hypothesis and theories so we can SOLVE and improve any problem! sociology is important and we need more good people that want to help humanity. sociology is a way to do that. :)
I'm watching this series after the fact and its interesting to see how it follows almost exactly the same syllabus as an introductory course into the history of sociology I did at university last semester. And I'm going to university in Germany, which makes the likeness of an American crash course even more interesting :D
I have a sociology exam this friday and I'm crying because I know absolutely nothing. I just crammed with assignments and I'm not making great test scores, so this exam will actually kill me. WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
... I am really worried about orientalist aproach here as suggesting Durkheim founded "structural functionism". He may have given some concrete background for the attitute towards society but hee merely pointed what can easily be found in Ibn Khâldun.
4:29...Social Facts: institutions, religious dogmas, population distribution, roles, laws, class structure, subcultures, statuses, financial systems, urbanization, beliefs, moral rules.
i like her color palette in this video. Pale yellow (her blonde hair) and the light aqua shirt with the deep purple sweater... it soothes me. I'll see myself out the creepy door.
Memes would be closer to considerations in social psychology. Durkheim and Gabriel Tarde had a long running debate about it, in which Tarde argued for something like Dawkin's memes, that Durkheim's social representations (the basis of that theory that was brushed on pretty quickly of collective consciousness) were in reality just mimetics, that people reproduced patterns and that those patterns only existed in their minds and then through their individual action. Tarde, as Dawkins, in fact, is a nominalist, meaning they rejected abstract conceptions like "society". Margaret Thatcher comes to mind here: there is no such thing as a society, nothing but a collection of individual interests. Durkheim believed that such a thing as stable social structures and common social ideals were a thing, that they did evolve through time and space, and that as such, empirically, they could be studied independently of a person's mental representations, through historical and empirical data. Uniting the macro and the micro through contextual and historical analysis. The whole is more than the sum of the parts, just like an unassembled machine: although it possesses all the right parts, it can't function right if the parts aren't held together by the design. We, as moderns, are social designers in a way, we no longer rely on that metaphysical ideal proposed by monotheism, at least in politics, to decide what's good for us. Durkheim took to task, after reading Montesquieu and a whole bunch of Aristotle, and postulated that since it's our responsibility to create a social environment conducive to "liberty, equality and fraternity", ideals of the French Revolution, it was also our responsibility to know the "machine" we are working with and to make sure that the pieces don't fall apart because we neglected to maintain some parts of it, to make sure we can fix any breaks, and even innovate to make that machine adapt to the times and to the tasks at hand. He had a strong hand in the debate about secularized public schools, and insisted children needed to learn not just how to be useful at work (Durkheim was anti-utilitarian) but also how to be moral citizens, capable of an enlightened democracy based on critical thinking and adaptation, capable of determining for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Looking at how things are going lately, perhaps we should be reading less Dawkins and more Durkheim.. I recommend the conclusion to the Elementary Forms of Religious Life, in which Durkheim makes a brilliant exposé on religion, science and social ideals.. He says, in short (and for me also, in conclusion), that during periods of "collective effervescence" (aka conflict), during which old ideals are dying or dead, and new ones are not yet quite confirmed, there reigns a sort of "moral cold". 100 years later, I still tend to think that is spot on, and an interesting twist on conflict theory: conflict, here, is not the normal state of society, but the abnormal state which we must overcome to rebuild solidarities. We are social animals, and as such, solidarity IS a dominant trait in "darwinistic" terms: we are stronger, more adaptable and resistant to exterior threaths when we are together, in groups. Dawkins's so-called "Selfish Genes" is bad biology at best, and ideological at worse, but one thing is certain: it's piss-poor sociology.
It's odd how all of the commenters who invoke the hard/soft science dichotomy are here listening to and commenting on this presentation. If one accepts their nullification of sociology as a science, we might as well throw out philosophy, psychology, cultural anthropology, and the arts, too. We can simply live out our lives knowing that we are carbon-based life forms orbiting the sun with no way to interpret physical data from a commonly shared understanding of who we are. Keep up the good work CrashCourse. The naysayers are looking for answers, too.
I'd say it was more the Frankfurt school neo-marxists, and post-modernism that has robbed sociology of any scientific merit, but I'm not a huge Marx fan either. He identified some problems in society, but his solutions have led to extreme butchery every time it has been tried. Over 100 million people dead, and some still think that THEY have the proper sophisticated understanding of Marx to make communism work. Hubris, thy name is modern marxists.
Mathesonguy What bias? lol, please care to elaborate, I basically named some of the most notable and influential *sociologists* , all the ones you named were philosophers and one of them a revolutionary, your list is completely off topic, I was talking about pioneers of sociology.
Got my sociology BA in a post-socialist country in Eastern Europe and I can assure you that Marx has not much to do with the bolshevik state socialism or Stalin. Das Kapital is a critisism of free market capitalism and he doesn't really ellaborate on what he though communism should look like. I think his work can be appreciated as it gave basis for other conflict theories and he gave us terminology like 'class' or 'feudalism'.
Cool video. I hate being dragged into family gatherings like Christmas. I have zero in common with them, but I get shamed and punished for not caring enough.
As fond as I am of Thorstein Veblen, I would be fine with your just continuing to talk about Durkheim for this entire Crash Course. You can connect him to much of what's going wrong with U.S. society at the moment. And the funny thing is that many of the haters would appreciate the connections. Durkheim was explaining Trump in the 19th century. But... you know what annoys the hell out of me? The 8-bit sound effects.
I hope someone at CC will read this, because I'm genuinely curious about some things. At a certain point in the video you said that crime strengthens the common conscientiousness and that judgment and punishment reflect society's morals and the strength of these morals. This isn't always the case though and the most well known example would be that of the war on drugs in the US. A significant part of the US population is in favor of legalizing certain mildly psychoactive substances. For instance, about 60% of the US population wants to see marijuana legalized and yet it's not only illegal, but relatively heavily punished as well. In this case, it's clear that what has been defined as a crime and the punishment of said crime doesn't necessarily reflect society's morals. I would say that crime and punishment oftenly reflect on the interest of a relatively small group of influential people. I would go even further and say that legislation in general has historically been more strongly influenced by a selective few than society as a whole and that public opinion has little influence without the threat of some form of public revolt. Even now we have studies indicating that there is little to no correlation between public opinion and new legislation. What I'm trying to say is that sociology seems inextricable from politics because the way a society is structured in some aspects might have little to do with the actual commonly held values and beliefs of a society. Are you ever going to focus on this intertwining of politics and sociology in the future? Another question I have pertains to moral judgements about societies as a whole. Let's say we know of a society that does horrible things like....pfft....lemme think of a hypothetical....I dunno....like stoning homosexuals and adulterers, killing people for apostasy and criticism of their pet religion, and heavily restrict the liberties of one gender, all of these horrible things getting broad support by the populus. In other words, that society's morals seem to promote blatantly immoral acts. Can we say that that society, at the least from our perspective, is immoral? Just a hypothetical, no society is *that* horrible, right?
Why did I get an Ad on this video?? I thought for sure people said anything even touching on this topic was Insta demonetized. Why is their sociology series specifically exempted from that, CZcams??
To be sure, Durkheim didn't LITERALLY think society was a living organism or a machine, as the video might seem to state... it's an allegory, an image: in wanting to establish sociology as a legit science in universities, he had to plead the case that this object, society, was more than just biology, psychology or as someone sneered in the comments, "continental philosophy". The metaphor of the organism served a very practical purpose: it spoke to the hard scientists, which were already inclined to know that biology, for example, could not be boiled down to simple physics and chemistry, that the whole of a living organism was a different field of inquiry with its own methods and focus/object, and that a living body could NOT be reduced to the sum of it's cells. The structure matters. Context matter. He was, in this way, an emergentist rather than a reductionnist (can I get a HELL YEAH for epistemology?!). His focus on social cohesion wasn't a cry for slow social change, order and conservatism either.. In fact, it was a form of conflict theory, but he simply didn't empirically see this "perpetual conflict", but rather periods of "effervescence" during which conflicts emerge and are resolved. Along with the degradation of consensus and social solidarity that comes with conflict also comes a form of "moral cold", he mused. And those conflicts are about the ideals to pursue in a given society, at a given time. Durkheim was a reformer and a socialist, he was involved in getting public education up to par with democratic social expectations, and saw education, not only work or law, as a way to achieve more solidarity; through teaching tolerance and developing critical thought in children, teaching them how to assess public policy and justice more rationally, and thus enabling them to fight the inequalities/discrimination that undermine their 'commons'. To achieve the kind of freedom and autonomy expected from the beacon of enlightenment that was supposed to be France, in a time of great social upheaval (The Dreyfuss Affair, and later the 1st world war, in which Durkheim lost his only son), one needs to be able to weigh in the policies, see what's been done before, in similar contexts, and what knowledge can inform us now and for the future. His views were more pragmatic and anchored in "reality" than most people give him credit for, and it's generally admitted now that the original works of Durkheim (which I've have the pleasure of reading in their original language) have suffered greatly from their anglo-saxon translation... It's much more nuanced in french, and as someone who's well versed, I can attest to this "lost in translation" status. Some chunks of text were often edited out in the english translations, and allowed for gross misunderstandings that endured for decades... and apparently, still endure to this day.
You talked about Emile Durkhiem but didn't mention his insistence on CONSTRAINTS and obligations which is nessicary for structure and function. The constrained vision goes directly against the unconstrained vision is being taught in sociology and the humanities today.
Feel like everyone is against this woman and sociology because it talks on touchy things no one wants to take the blame for or try to understand so they are just going to make fun of it and her for no earthly reason- every crash course video is fast and while some science measures space and cloning things that are incredible and amazing but not quite hitting home. Sociology talks about racism, sexism, stereotypes and where things like this and more come from and how we can change thinking. Like if that isn't a huge deal to you then maybe your not impacted or you just don't care but when sociology is in the right hands you can change and do so much its unthinkable to think people without any of these skills or this knowledge could comment
Well said!
amen
Shea Loucks isn’t that with everything not just sociology or psychology but any info? I don’t think a crash course video is top of the political platforms
Where was this series during my undergrad years?! It's ok. Now I use them when I tutor undergrads 😅. Thank you for your great content that never disappoints, Crash Course Team.
R u from USA Yasmin
can u help to understand theories
Gaurav Singh Well, Well Bob and vagene guy is here.
i like how every course has a different type of the same music
I love that we're this far in and still bringing up the science/not science. As a double major in both sociology and environmental science, I have no trouble calling sociology a science. There's a lot of social factors driving the argument, but in the end, trying to invalidate sociology is largely meaningless. If we only focused on knowledge from "hard sciences" without also bringing in "soft science" knowledge, we wouldn't get very far.
4:19 "if there's a box on the floor I sits" typical cat. Kudos to the animator for that cool little detail
What I’m gaining from this series is that
We indeed
Live in a society
THIS VIDEO IS A MINUTE OLD. ONE. MINUTE. HOW CAN PEOPLE BE ABLE TO WATCH ENOUGH TO SAY THEY DISLIKE IT. HOW?
cauz she said sociology is a science and it trigged some physics
I hope you meant "some douchebags". I study chemistry myself and know of a lot of natural science students that are aware of sociology as a science.
But I get what you want to say and I guess you're right.
+aristide colbrant
Oh it's a science all right -- just the most inaccurate and misleading of them all. And it will remain that way until a computational model of the brain is created that can accurately describe all human behavior. I give that about half a century for a single brain simulation, and then a bit over a century to compute mini-societies to see how people interact.
To clarify: a key aspect of science is variables. If you cannot control variables, then you cannot do accurate science. Humans are notoriously difficult to predict because of just how many variables are prevalent in someone's life. That's why any science based on human behavior is near-impossible to get accurate results.
+ Bose-Einstein
I'd say it's the most difficult science. Because yeah, you can't really study isolated phenomena in humans.
Which is why you should absolutely take every study with a grain of salt. This goes for medicine too, tho.
well the video did say crime is normal
I feel like I don't know enough about sociology to participate in the "is sociology a scientific discipline" discussion. And those who participated doesn't seem to care enough to educate us. I guess being condescending is just much more satisfying.
Go subscribe to a sociological journal, read some of the sociological literature and decide for yourself if the methodology is adequate for you to consider it a science, anything anyone tells you will be so skewed in favour of their position it's useless (sorry I can't be more helpful).
My knowledge on the subject is like a 12 year old's knowledge regarding theoretical physics. Neither me or the 12 year old can read the journals and understand them adequately to make judgement. Which is why I don't pass judgement and trust those who know better.
All I have is basic critical thinking to know if an argument is flawed. Skewed they may be, at least I can ask questions and get an answer and approach the truth.
I do want to know enough. But the TLDR is clearly not enough. No offence.
I can see the political bias may affect data interpretations. I also agree that social studies can be easily abused as excuses to marginalise people.
But let me play devil's avocate for a moment.
Isn't that a weakness to all science? How palaeontologists once thought dinosaurs looks like lizards. Sigmund Freud thought everything is about sex. Science is a self-correcting process. Past mistakes shouldn't discredit it, no?
So I guess sociology is as much a science as psychology is or was? (It's a genuine question i'd like to know)
YoungTheFish
Yes, it is weakness to all sciences. Although science also has approved testing methods, data and a cold glass of skepicism as counter measures.
The problem with psychology, finances, sociology (even maybe nutrition) and why there is reluctance in giving it the science label is ultimately because of the numbers of unexplained/unknown variables and how it's much harder to reduce them like you can in a lab with the *hard sciences.*
People find that we don't know enough about these things to draw emperical knowledge or to distinguish it from nonsense caused by unknown variables.
That is why there is an urge to stress that point.
If we had AI simulations to conduct large test on population, or even just a good enough system to module the brain, all this would be a different story.
I think I know where I should look into next.
Crash Course will probably go into some method of study in sociology. By then I should be able to talk to you guys more on what is right/wrong about it.
Thanks guys!
Oh man, that Christmas scenario is literally my family every year. No one cares about gifts and we keep giving them...
I bet next week's discussion of Marx is going to be SUPER civil and respectful, and the comment section will be devoid of predisposed bias and ignorance of the source material. :D
+That Fig Ain't no party BUT the Communist Party! Cuz the Communist party, bans all other parties.
Frank Dayton well depends where you are.
You are far too optimistic! Go read some Dostoyevsky immediately!
Agreed. I am already thinking up what to write before even watching that next video... :D
Noblesse Oblige yeah
"I like Crash Course, but this is the only series that goes against my personal biases, so I will say it is wrong"
Sameopet Sociology pisses people off
www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/5oaa15/why_do_social_science_theories_tend_to_support/dci35q0/
Obviously, people don't have to be liberal or leftist to study sociology or the social sciences but I wonder about why this is the discipline that gets so much flak.
People seem to not believe the results are reliable, and believe the methodology is not scientific and/or is flawed. That's why it gets so much flak/
how can studying society be against anyone veiw?
I've not seen that in sociological journals that I've read, so I think your wrong that fig
Lol what? That just sounds like a comment an ignoramus would make.
Another great video! Durkheim's theory is super interesting, though I'm surprised they didn't mention or explain Durkheim's concept of anomie.
I expect that will come up when they do an episode that focuses on crime and social deviancy. Anomie is really the theory that explains those kinds of things.
Yeah, hopefully they'll get to it. Hard to do it all in 9 minutes.
Now that you've pointed that out, I have a feeling it'll come up in my exam.
One has to wonder why status quo warriors so vehemently oppose the study of society.
Defenders of the status quo can't have the status quo undermined, which an objective analysis might inadvertently do.
I don't even think they know, it has simply been villainized and they are simply reacting that way because it is what they have been told to do.
Who told me to do that rob?
+Rob McCune *vilified. I agree, it seems largely unconscious on their part. It would have to be, they often deny the very existence of status quo ideology.
Knight Chime because they're not warriors at all they are afraid of change and anything else that would rouse them from their warm hoggish beds. Their cry of "you can't tell me what to do" should conflict with their political beliefs but doesn't because what they want is whatever the group around them wants, ethical or not. At age 15 they became jaded and cynical because it all was laid out for them; school, career, a family, old age and death, and they never thought to question it or seek anything other than security, sensation or power.
Thank you so much!!! I was studying sociology for exams and I disagreed with Durkheim because I had misunderstood his point (my sociology book sucks). This video explained EVERYTHING so well! I know understand! Thank you soooooo much!
I really wished you mentioned Durkheim's concept of anomie instead of just "social disintegration".
+
anythinggoesguy +
+
This.
That's for another topic. In my class they talked Anomie during deviance.
After comparing this to my Sociology classes, I realized that this video ignores many of Durkheim's ideas. So, CrashCourse must be only looking to give an introduction to some concepts; if the viewer wants to really understand the presented subject, he has to go beyond this introduction and look for external resources on it. That said, CrashCourse should provide at least some those resources in their descriptions (like websites, books and articles) in order to help the viewer understand that subject.
I support you.
"So, CrashCourse must be only looking to give an introduction to some
concepts; if the viewer wants to really understand the presented
subject, he has to go beyond this introduction and look for external
resources on it."
Well, duh!
That's been the case with ALL their series since DAY ONE!
lol, yeah.
crash course: noun. a fast, intensive training in or study of a subject, esp. on the basics
there isn't time in 40 nine minute videos to cover ANY subject completely. this is just a survey.
''CrashCourse should provide at least some those resources in their description (like websites, books and articles)'' That's the part I support. The rest of the comment is an obvious fact.
weesh ful I thought it was just a fun name the creators of this channel had come up with.
Pumped for some dialectical materialism next week
Seth Apex So your opposition to sociology predates sociology? Retrocausality is very scientific.
Seth Apex+ Americans*. And they doesn't matter.
You realize everyone can tell you're copying and pasting that comment right?
Seth Apex: Why? Marx's insight into the relationship between the structure of economies and the dominant ideologies of a society was invaluable. That's not even mentioning his flushing out of the ramifications of dividing society into wage slaves and the ownership class.
Me too!
To those who say she is talking too fast : guys use playback speed feature . Content Quality is good . don't you weep like kids just because something is not perfect.
Omg we are studying Durkheim in my school and now crash course comes up with this video? I love you guys
Between this and the mythology series I've just been so stoked to see CC updates lately! :D This is super fascinating, and I'm glad this information is being dispensed in such a broad and yet clear manner. Way to go, guys!
CrashCourse videos are nearly always great. I use them all the time to re-establish my understanding on all sorts of theories.
One thing though: why do all the hosts talk so bloody fast?
I am sure this is a question you've addressed long ago, and I am sure you're trying to squeeze in as much content in under 10 mins but damn... it makes it really hard to absorb without having to pause and re-listen!
You know what,- one second. I have to go back in other episodes to find her name. NICOLE!-
You know what, love all the videos, rarely comment, but Nicole. That coat looks great with those glasses.
#NicoleKilledIt
Chandler Lee
Is she from buzzfeed?
She said in the "intro to sociology" vid that she's a like "behind the scenes /technician personal"
I would LOVE to see a crash course on Medical Sciences. Like medication, diseases, surgeries, tools, etc. It would be so interesting.
People really should follow these videos in order before they storm the comment section with their Ignorance.
Toxic Bubbles sociology is neither science nor philosophy. This doesn't mean that thinkers like Durkheim and Webber didn't have insightful observation, they did but that's all they were; insightful observation. The discipline itself is generally nonsense.
Clarification: a lot of people are asking questions and becoming conflicted that were clearly answered in previous videos. Whether sociology is a science or philosophy is entirely up to you, just be considerate and kind to others down here in our little digital society, thank you.
Toxic Bubbles to interpret sociology as either science or philosophy is to admit that you don't know what science or philosophy are. Greetings from a philosophy major.
Toxic Bubbles our ignorance is our bliss
I am a student of sociology
And I use to study through ur video which is very helpful, but u speak so fast that I use to watch ur videos in 0.75x speed.🤣
But still ur teaching skills are really fabulous
So if Durkheim were alive today, his Structural Functionalism model would characterize internet trolling as one of the necessary cohesive components, or social facts, in the developed world's societies; not, conversely, as a social dysfunction. As if trolls needed another reason to rationalize their behavior. xP
Your videos are always well planned, informative, and thought provoking Nicole. Thank you.
mm no
This one was pretty damn fascinating. I'd love to hear more about social cohesion/integration. I feel like we probably still have this problem.
Oh wow, Durkheim. Flashbacks to my social anthropology class. Lots of time spent on his papers on prisons, the state, and politics. Very interesting thoughts, but tricky to translate, so we read a lot of bad English and some French and tried to analyze that.
Before watching this video, I was HIGHLY skeptical of the reference to sociology as a 'science' - at least in practice. Well, I still am.
But Durkheim's statistical analysis and concept of 'social fact' - real, observable behaviour really surprised me. I always knew Auguste Comte was incredibly scientific - he wanted sociology to be called 'social physics' and was a positivist - you don't get more 'science-y' than a positivist, but never knew Durkheim came a relatively close second.
I guess the problem really started with the infusion of continental philosophy into sociology. Which is to say, I'm an Alan Sokal fan. If you don't know who he is, oh boy! Do look him up!
Thank you, Crash Course. Love your computer science series too much.Taught me more about computer architecture than a six-month long semester could.
Ronit Hazarika ++++++++
By all means, stay skeptical until satisfied.
Sociology tends to rely heavily on statistics, and a careful understanding of how to properly use statistics.
Science is about making predictions based on reasoning or observations. It's about being able to check those predictions, and rejecting them if they fail. Sociology does this. It doesn't mean we understand society, or how societies are going to act in every case, but it still works to make predictions and reject things that are false.
verdatum The problem with people that think that Sociology is not a Science is their lack of knowledge about the discipline.
All theories in Sociology must be based on empirical data, they must be falsifiable and they shuold have predictive power, just like any natural science.
The BIG difference is that, when your subject of study is Society as a whole, you have to be aware that this structure has influenced you and IS influencing you, so everything you used to describe it comes from the very thing you are trying to describe, every valoration or judgement you have is influenced because you are an agent in the structure.
And the thing that makes Sociology very different is that the different agents that conform society behave in a different way outside the structure they conform. You can't isolate them for study so you have to do field work. This contrasts with the metodology of natural Science (a chemical reaction outside the laboratory is the same in any other part of the world)
and to make things more complicated the structure is always changing.
Crash Course stated that Sociology is based around peoples subjective realities and perceptions of the world around them. This is flawed. Because by the rules of sociology, any High school student can pickup a sociology text book and cross out half the book and simply say "Not applicable in my reality". Sociology is not a science, it is a sandbox of theories that can be tossed at any time.
The high school student couldn't do this if they were following Durkheim's vision of sociology. Because sociology for Durkheim is meant to study social facts that exist and operate external to any individual and beyond the control of any individual will, any statement of "Not applicable in my reality," will quickly be exposed as absurd. Take the example of Christmas traditions in the video. Individuals cannot just ignore that Christmas and its traditions exist and that it influences people's social behavior. Sociologists would laugh in the face of "Not applicable in my reality," just as much as most people would.
Thus, for Durkheim at least, sociology can still have a subject matter, social facts, without explicit appeal to subjectivity. Weber was much more explicit about the importance of subjectivity and individual meanings attached to social action than Durkheim. But for Durkheim, the individual and their subjectivity had a marginal role in his thinking.
Can people just stop criticising the subject in every single video? Don't you people ever get exhausted? If you don't like something harmless, just ignore and move along.
No🤭
Just had a project about this guy. This lady helped me a lot. Props to her! 💪
Sociology is so interesting. Such a waste I didn't take it....
I love these videos on Sociology. One of the best crash courses
I always find it amazing, that in the US, the word "race" is absolutely normal and acceptable, while in Europe it is not used (except by extreme rightists) since more than 70 years.
7GHunter7 Just wondering: What do you use instead? How would you describe the concept of race in Europe?
Ethnicity, descent,,
Nationality, culture, or heritage.
European history involved less racial motivation than in the U.S. and the nations are less diverse, so people don't generally define themselves by it. Races still exist as something more complex than skin color--like Celts or Slavs--but ethnicity, language, and history are the ideas people latch onto.
I LOVE THESE SOCIOLOGY VIDEOS THANK
i'm trying to read Durkheim for a third year sociology unit and struggling badly so I really appreciate this thank you 😅
"somehow manage to all hold together"
2020 put an end to that!
I wish I could coordinate my glasses with my jacket like that. Those look spot on the same!
Had to slow the video down to 0.75 to make it a little bit more understandable.
I would Love to see social work series from you guys 🥺
ready for my exam in two weeks now
she's beautiful and an amazing presenter.
30mins before my sociology exam let’s watch crash course
Can you include criminology in CrashCourse Sociology
Hank and the other male presenters talk just as fast, and use the same hand gestures etc... but any time a chick does a video on this channel - queue the hate...
Simon Stacey, there are more than just one variable (gender of speaker) here though. There's the subject, which most people are probably unfamiliar with. This means speaking fast can actually slow down how fast viewers can process information.
Gender inequality isn't a disease, it a part of society. It's level can be used to measure arbitrary concepts and reinforce hollow arguments.
I like Nicole and this series, but no, the others don't speak as quickly as she does.
Yes. They Do.
UnashamedlyHentai I mean you can say that if you want to, but anyone who has watched any of hank or johns videos knows that you are wrong.
So Durkheim was basically one of the earlier scientists who began to notice large scale social constructs and their significance. This Course just keeps getting more and more interesting.
And even more interesting, he gave data high priority in his research. It's hard for me to see how his approach wouldn't help Sociology. I can't wait for next week's, though. Class struggle. Putting communism aside, Marx's analysis of society is deeply profound and genius.
I would love to hear you talk about Robert Merton some time in the future
You really spoke like to sociologist, so fluent and confident
the timing is real. I just finished '13 reasons why' omgg
sociology is about researching the problems of society, forming hypothesis and theories so we can SOLVE and improve any problem! sociology is important and we need more good people that want to help humanity. sociology is a way to do that. :)
I'm watching this series after the fact and its interesting to see how it follows almost exactly the same syllabus as an introductory course into the history of sociology I did at university last semester. And I'm going to university in Germany, which makes the likeness of an American crash course even more interesting :D
All these comments paint in a negative light. I liked this video, it was very interesting and entertaining.
Watch at 0.75× if you're struggling with registering information like me
This just saved my introduction section of my year three geography paper on international students integration challenges
I have a sociology exam this friday and I'm crying because I know absolutely nothing. I just crammed with assignments and I'm not making great test scores, so this exam will actually kill me.
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Loving the thought bubbles for this series.
Glad to see the comments drifting away from the is/not science arguments and toward pedantic "corrections" to the video.
... I am really worried about orientalist aproach here as suggesting Durkheim founded "structural functionism". He may have given some concrete background for the attitute towards society but hee merely pointed what can easily be found in Ibn Khâldun.
Structural Functionalists for the win! I loved using his framework back in university. Keep the videos coming crash course :)
Studying Sociology here, thanks for this
Probably a video left on Hannah's (13rw) yt recommendation list..
4:29...Social Facts: institutions, religious dogmas, population distribution, roles, laws, class structure, subcultures, statuses, financial systems, urbanization, beliefs, moral rules.
Incredible what they managed to include in ten minutes... woow
i like her color palette in this video. Pale yellow (her blonde hair) and the light aqua shirt with the deep purple sweater... it soothes me. I'll see myself out the creepy door.
always here for durkheim :')
what a great way to start the morning...
So, are social facts the same thing as memes- in a Richard Dawkins, rather than lolcat, sense?
David Durant I think social facts are a broader category, but yes pretty much.
Very interesting comparation !!!!
interesting
social facts are a sub-set of Dawkins memes.
Memes would be closer to considerations in social psychology. Durkheim and Gabriel Tarde had a long running debate about it, in which Tarde argued for something like Dawkin's memes, that Durkheim's social representations (the basis of that theory that was brushed on pretty quickly of collective consciousness) were in reality just mimetics, that people reproduced patterns and that those patterns only existed in their minds and then through their individual action. Tarde, as Dawkins, in fact, is a nominalist, meaning they rejected abstract conceptions like "society". Margaret Thatcher comes to mind here: there is no such thing as a society, nothing but a collection of individual interests. Durkheim believed that such a thing as stable social structures and common social ideals were a thing, that they did evolve through time and space, and that as such, empirically, they could be studied independently of a person's mental representations, through historical and empirical data. Uniting the macro and the micro through contextual and historical analysis. The whole is more than the sum of the parts, just like an unassembled machine: although it possesses all the right parts, it can't function right if the parts aren't held together by the design. We, as moderns, are social designers in a way, we no longer rely on that metaphysical ideal proposed by monotheism, at least in politics, to decide what's good for us. Durkheim took to task, after reading Montesquieu and a whole bunch of Aristotle, and postulated that since it's our responsibility to create a social environment conducive to "liberty, equality and fraternity", ideals of the French Revolution, it was also our responsibility to know the "machine" we are working with and to make sure that the pieces don't fall apart because we neglected to maintain some parts of it, to make sure we can fix any breaks, and even innovate to make that machine adapt to the times and to the tasks at hand. He had a strong hand in the debate about secularized public schools, and insisted children needed to learn not just how to be useful at work (Durkheim was anti-utilitarian) but also how to be moral citizens, capable of an enlightened democracy based on critical thinking and adaptation, capable of determining for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Looking at how things are going lately, perhaps we should be reading less Dawkins and more Durkheim.. I recommend the conclusion to the Elementary Forms of Religious Life, in which Durkheim makes a brilliant exposé on religion, science and social ideals.. He says, in short (and for me also, in conclusion), that during periods of "collective effervescence" (aka conflict), during which old ideals are dying or dead, and new ones are not yet quite confirmed, there reigns a sort of "moral cold". 100 years later, I still tend to think that is spot on, and an interesting twist on conflict theory: conflict, here, is not the normal state of society, but the abnormal state which we must overcome to rebuild solidarities. We are social animals, and as such, solidarity IS a dominant trait in "darwinistic" terms: we are stronger, more adaptable and resistant to exterior threaths when we are together, in groups. Dawkins's so-called "Selfish Genes" is bad biology at best, and ideological at worse, but one thing is certain: it's piss-poor sociology.
My sociology exam is tomorrow. Why am I just discovering this? 😂
This just got dark really quickly,
I like your speaking speed how it is now.
It's odd how all of the commenters who invoke the hard/soft science dichotomy are here listening to and commenting on this presentation. If one accepts their nullification of sociology as a science, we might as well throw out philosophy, psychology, cultural anthropology, and the arts, too. We can simply live out our lives knowing that we are carbon-based life forms orbiting the sun with no way to interpret physical data from a commonly shared understanding of who we are. Keep up the good work CrashCourse. The naysayers are looking for answers, too.
Ooh there's a short section about this in my textbook, it's interesting to learn more about it
Very informative video thank you.
Makes sense on all the intrests on individuals and the colkective conscience hub.
Durkheim, Comte, Webber, Marx and Ibn Khaldoun (underrated) are the G.O.A.T's
Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza, and Paine are "greats".
Your list shows your bias, and it is ugly.
also Bourdieu
I'd say it was more the Frankfurt school neo-marxists, and post-modernism that has robbed sociology of any scientific merit, but I'm not a huge Marx fan either.
He identified some problems in society, but his solutions have led to extreme butchery every time it has been tried. Over 100 million people dead, and some still think that THEY have the proper sophisticated understanding of Marx to make communism work. Hubris, thy name is modern marxists.
Mathesonguy What bias? lol, please care to elaborate, I basically named some of the most notable and influential *sociologists* , all the ones you named were philosophers and one of them a revolutionary, your list is completely off topic, I was talking about pioneers of sociology.
Got my sociology BA in a post-socialist country in Eastern Europe and I can assure you that Marx has not much to do with the bolshevik state socialism or Stalin. Das Kapital is a critisism of free market capitalism and he doesn't really ellaborate on what he though communism should look like. I think his work can be appreciated as it gave basis for other conflict theories and he gave us terminology like 'class' or 'feudalism'.
Am I crazy because I read and write CZcams comments? What are the social implications of keeping such company in one's life?
Been waiting for the new crash course!
*Violently has 13 Reasons Why flashbacks*
Cool video.
I hate being dragged into family gatherings like Christmas. I have zero in common with them, but I get shamed and punished for not caring enough.
I could watch this again and again. Very Pleasing to watch and listen to 🙃
As fond as I am of Thorstein Veblen, I would be fine with your just continuing to talk about Durkheim for this entire Crash Course. You can connect him to much of what's going wrong with U.S. society at the moment.
And the funny thing is that many of the haters would appreciate the connections. Durkheim was explaining Trump in the 19th century.
But... you know what annoys the hell out of me? The 8-bit sound effects.
LOVE THIS SERIES!!!!!!!!!!
Got clickbaited 'til the end.. yes!
I hope someone at CC will read this, because I'm genuinely curious about some things.
At a certain point in the video you said that crime strengthens the common conscientiousness and that judgment and punishment reflect society's morals and the strength of these morals. This isn't always the case though and the most well known example would be that of the war on drugs in the US. A significant part of the US population is in favor of legalizing certain mildly psychoactive substances. For instance, about 60% of the US population wants to see marijuana legalized and yet it's not only illegal, but relatively heavily punished as well. In this case, it's clear that what has been defined as a crime and the punishment of said crime doesn't necessarily reflect society's morals. I would say that crime and punishment oftenly reflect on the interest of a relatively small group of influential people. I would go even further and say that legislation in general has historically been more strongly influenced by a selective few than society as a whole and that public opinion has little influence without the threat of some form of public revolt. Even now we have studies indicating that there is little to no correlation between public opinion and new legislation. What I'm trying to say is that sociology seems inextricable from politics because the way a society is structured in some aspects might have little to do with the actual commonly held values and beliefs of a society. Are you ever going to focus on this intertwining of politics and sociology in the future?
Another question I have pertains to moral judgements about societies as a whole. Let's say we know of a society that does horrible things like....pfft....lemme think of a hypothetical....I dunno....like stoning homosexuals and adulterers, killing people for apostasy and criticism of their pet religion, and heavily restrict the liberties of one gender, all of these horrible things getting broad support by the populus. In other words, that society's morals seem to promote blatantly immoral acts. Can we say that that society, at the least from our perspective, is immoral? Just a hypothetical, no society is *that* horrible, right?
"collective consciousness" sounds like a name of a scifi movie where aliens suck your thoughts
Dr.StickFigure lmao
Collective Conscience*
A great sociologist. His name says it all.
I literally dont buy gifts on chrismas lol. I be like oh you bought me something; thankyou love you 🙂
Anyone else watching this video for a school assignment?
Nicole's cartoon is really adorable!
Awesome!! I can't wait to learn about Karl Marx's sociological views!
This is the truest video ever
These are amazing I absolutely love it you're doing such a brilliant job
Why did I get an Ad on this video?? I thought for sure people said anything even touching on this topic was Insta demonetized. Why is their sociology series specifically exempted from that, CZcams??
Anyone think of 13 reasons why from the title?
Loved this video. Easy to understand
This is a good video. Perfect for a crash course, regardless of other comments.
good course. Btw love how the glasses match your jacket :) and you remind me of leslie knope !!
Had to stop 8s in. Obviously we have some sort of society because we have a shared language. Why would we need a language if we were solitary?
To be sure, Durkheim didn't LITERALLY think society was a living organism or a machine, as the video might seem to state... it's an allegory, an image: in wanting to establish sociology as a legit science in universities, he had to plead the case that this object, society, was more than just biology, psychology or as someone sneered in the comments, "continental philosophy". The metaphor of the organism served a very practical purpose: it spoke to the hard scientists, which were already inclined to know that biology, for example, could not be boiled down to simple physics and chemistry, that the whole of a living organism was a different field of inquiry with its own methods and focus/object, and that a living body could NOT be reduced to the sum of it's cells. The structure matters. Context matter. He was, in this way, an emergentist rather than a reductionnist (can I get a HELL YEAH for epistemology?!).
His focus on social cohesion wasn't a cry for slow social change, order and conservatism either.. In fact, it was a form of conflict theory, but he simply didn't empirically see this "perpetual conflict", but rather periods of "effervescence" during which conflicts emerge and are resolved. Along with the degradation of consensus and social solidarity that comes with conflict also comes a form of "moral cold", he mused. And those conflicts are about the ideals to pursue in a given society, at a given time. Durkheim was a reformer and a socialist, he was involved in getting public education up to par with democratic social expectations, and saw education, not only work or law, as a way to achieve more solidarity; through teaching tolerance and developing critical thought in children, teaching them how to assess public policy and justice more rationally, and thus enabling them to fight the inequalities/discrimination that undermine their 'commons'. To achieve the kind of freedom and autonomy expected from the beacon of enlightenment that was supposed to be France, in a time of great social upheaval (The Dreyfuss Affair, and later the 1st world war, in which Durkheim lost his only son), one needs to be able to weigh in the policies, see what's been done before, in similar contexts, and what knowledge can inform us now and for the future. His views were more pragmatic and anchored in "reality" than most people give him credit for, and it's generally admitted now that the original works of Durkheim (which I've have the pleasure of reading in their original language) have suffered greatly from their anglo-saxon translation... It's much more nuanced in french, and as someone who's well versed, I can attest to this "lost in translation" status. Some chunks of text were often edited out in the english translations, and allowed for gross misunderstandings that endured for decades... and apparently, still endure to this day.
You talked about Emile Durkhiem but didn't mention his insistence on CONSTRAINTS and obligations which is nessicary for structure and function. The constrained vision goes directly against the unconstrained vision is being taught in sociology and the humanities today.
Thank you for the video! I love your accent and how the way you speak.