Skip to main content
Log in

Comment on Abrutyn’s “Time Crunch” Problem in Teaching Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Time for the Dichotomy to become a Trichotomy?

  • Published:
The American Sociologist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In “Teaching Sociological Theory for a New Century: Contending with the Time Crunch,” Abrutyn argues that it is time to re-think how sociological theory is taught in the university due to time constraints that make it increasingly difficult to cover the expanding canon of sociological theory. In this article I revisit Abrutyn’s position on the state of teaching sociological theory. I analyze sociological theory course syllabi across the discipline to provide further evidence that illustrates the problem of the time crunch. From this investigation I argue that the best strategy to deal with the “time crunch” is to re-think the way theory is taught and add an additional course to current curricula. Only by adding an additional course and trichotomizing the current classical and contemporary dichotomy can the time crunch be corrected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Jonathan H. Turner’s discussion of Spencer’s misrepresentation as purely an elitist and naïve functionalist in his introduction to Spencer’s The Principles of Sociology (2003).

References

  • Abrutyn, S. (2013). Teaching sociological theory for a new century: contending with the time crunch. American Sociologist, 44, 132–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, R. (1968). Progress and disillusion. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fisek, M. H. (1974). Expectations states theory: A theoretical research program. Cambridge: Winthrop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chafetz, J. S. (1999). The varieties of gender theory in sociology. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 3–23). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1984 [1893]). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (2011 [1956]). When prophecy fails. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing.

  • Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, C. L., & Leicht, K. T. (2011). Exploring social change: America and the world. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, meta-physics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 283–310). Dosdrect: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heise, D. R. (2002). Understanding social interaction with affect control theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), New directions in contemporary sociological theory (pp. 17–40). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace and World Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 45, 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, T. D. (1978). A social interactional theory of emotions. New York: Wiley Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. H. (1964). Major trends in symbolic interaction theory in the past twenty-five years. The Sociological Quarterly, 5, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengermann, P., & Niebrugge, G. (2007). Resource book for teaching sociological theory (5th ed.). New York: American Sociological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewy, G. (1974). Religion and revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovaglia, M. J. (1999). Understanding network exchange theory. Advances in Group Processes, 16, 31–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munch, R. (1994a). Sociological theory, volume 1: From the 1850s to the 1920s. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munch, R. (1994b). Sociological theory, volume 2: From the 1920s to the 1960s. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munch, R. (1994c). Sociological theory, volume 3: Development Since the 1960s. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, P., & Lenski, G. (2011). Human societies. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogburn, W. F. (1922). Social change with respect to culture and original nature. New York: B. W. Huebsch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1949). The structure of social action. Glencoe: the Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Status construction theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, H. (2003). The principles of sociology. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, N. (2003). A critical introduction to queer theory. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tönnies, F. (1988 [1887]). Community and society (gemeinschaft and gesellschaft). London: Transaction.

  • Turner, J. H., & Stets, J. E. (2005). Sociology of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, I. (2000). The essential Wallerstein. New York: The New York Press.

  • Willer, D. (1999). Network exchange theory. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Carter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carter, M.J. Comment on Abrutyn’s “Time Crunch” Problem in Teaching Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Time for the Dichotomy to become a Trichotomy?. Am Soc 44, 302–311 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-013-9184-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-013-9184-7

Keywords

Navigation