Comte Unplugged

Abstract

Sociology majors learn that sociological theory is foundational to our field; it frames the way we look at the world and provides guiding questions for our social inquiry. But sociology instructors know that teaching theory is a challenge. A number of activities have been created to engage students in sociological theory courses. This note discusses an exercise that adds to these activities and is tied to the learning outcomes of a theory course. The author’s students are given a challenge: For 72 hours back-to-back, avoid checking or communicating via Facebook or MySpace; making calls from cell phones, unless it is an emergency; and texting or e-mailing from cell phones and handheld devices. The author found that this Technology Fast Challenge helped students foster a sociological perspective and allowed them to engage the ideas and questions of major social theorists. The author discusses the format of the challenge, the outcomes, and applications to other courses.

Keywords

sociological theory technology active learning student learning

Sociologists would agree that studying sociological theory is a crucial component for the intellectual development of a student of sociology. Sociology majors learn that sociological theory is foundational to our field, as theories frame the way we look at the world and provide guiding questions for our social inquiry (Orum 1980; Scarboro 2004; Segady 1990). The skills to be gained from studying theory align with many of the learning outcomes that we expect from a well-rounded general education curriculum (American Sociological Association [ASA] Task Force on Sociology and General Education; McKinney et al. 2004). Johnson (2001:163) argues that mastering sociological theory plays an important role in the development of “important skills—verbal comprehension, critical thinking and scientific reasoning.” Indeed, as recommended by the ASA, most departments of sociology around the country require one or two courses in theory toward the completion of an undergraduate degree in sociology (Kain 2007; McKinney et al. 2004). Similarly, in line with my department and ASA’s learning outcomes, my college requires majors to take a one-semester theory course.

Clearly, developing and demonstrating an understanding of sociological theory among our students is important for our field. But those of us who teach the course are also acutely aware of the challenges we face in doing so (Johnson 2001; Lowney 1998; Orum 1980; Scarboro 2004; Silver and Perez 1998). There are a few explanations for these challenges. As others have pointed out, students find theoretical ideas abstract and the readings dense and confusing, and many students are even unsure of why they need to study theory (Donaghy 2000; Holtzman 2005). All of this is fueled by what Lowney (1998) identified as “theory anxiety” among students. I have found similar responses among my students.

Compared with courses that students feel they can personally relate to, such as Race and Ethnicity or Family and Marriage, my students perceive theory as dry, abstract, and unimportant and most of all disconnected from “real” skills that they believe will directly translate into acquiring a job. How will knowing about Comte get me a job? Most of my students believe that the purpose of attending college (and attaining a degree) is to secure a job. Of course, students ask this question about the relevancy of many courses to their careers, not just the theory one. This is reinforced by what Cornwell (2001) refers to as the demand for practical education that prepares students for jobs. At the start of each theory course, I find it necessary to motivate my students by reinforcing the redeeming value of learning theory: Theory helps develop important intellectual skills such as thinking critically and systematically about new ideas.

Many instructors of social theory have introduced classroom activities and pedagogical techniques to counter students’ apprehension and engage them with course material. Lowney (1998) gives her students a puzzle to complete as a metaphor for approaching the study of theory. Instructors have suggested using films (Fails 1988) and music (Ahlkvist 2001) to illustrate theoretical ideas, role-playing with theorists (Sturgis 1983), and using news items from the media to illustrate theory (Donaghy 2000). More specifically, Lippmann and Aldrich (2003) engage students studying Weber and rationalization with a hands-on collaborative project focused on the fast-food industry. These activities strengthen the finding that students learn theory best when they can grapple with the material in an experiential, engaged, and “active” manner (Holtzman 2005; Silver and Perez 1998). The project I discuss here is one addition to the many effective teaching strategies to help students reflect upon the essential themes of a sociological theory course: history, social change, the ideas that compose specific theories, and the role of the individual in society.

I teach a wide range of sociology courses at a small Catholic liberal arts and professional degree college.¹ Teaching theory is a relatively new experience for me since adopting the course a few years ago from a former colleague. The course is offered every two years, so I am less comfortable teaching it than I am other courses that I teach with more regularity. Further, because there are limited upper division courses offered in sociology, students may not be exposed to theory in other courses as they might be at larger schools.

As expressed in the key learning outcomes for the Development of Sociological Theory² course, students are expected to understand the central questions and/or concerns that theorists had about the world they studied; understand and explain the level of analysis, such as micro or macro, that each theorist used in studying society; and analyze and apply theoretical concepts and ideas to contemporary issues. At the start of studying each theorist, I introduce the historical time period in which the theorist was writing and any philosophical or social questions or concerns the theorist posed about society. These philosophical or social questions address themes such as the macro or micro focus of theories, the historical nature of social change, and the role of individuals in their contexts. Understanding the rationale behind questions such as “What holds society together?” gives students a sense of why the theorists studied what they did and thus why it might be important for contemporary scholars and students to reflect on the world in which we live. As such, I took the opportunity to make my theory course content more relevant to students’ lives (Silver and Perez 1998), as evidenced by the following case.

In an online article from HigherEdMorning, faculty members around the country gave their students various challenges, all of which focused on a central theme: Avoid using technology or technological gadgets for a certain period of time (Reid 2010). Like one professor who referred to her students as the “wired generation,” research suggests that “millennials” are technologically savvy, having grown up with the Internet, technological gadgets, and Internet programs (Keeter and Taylor 2009). For example, a recent study shows that 75 percent of millennials have a profile on a social networking site and identify their generation as distinct because of the role of technology in their everyday lives (Keeter and Taylor 2009). Reading about this challenge made me wonder how I could adapt it to help achieve some of my course objectives in sociological theory. To appreciate the value of theory, as well as to develop the continuous goal of using a sociological perspective, I asked my students to reflect on history, their social context, and theorists’ ideas involving an aspect of their generation to which they can all relate: technological communication devices and media. In this process, I had two general goals as a sociology instructor: first, to complement other course requirements in helping students achieve the learning outcomes for the class and, second, to continue to foster a sociological perspective among my students. What follows is a discussion of a project that I implemented in my theory course.

The Technology Fast Challenge

Based on the idea behind the HigherEdMorning class activities, I returned to my course learning outcomes to adapt the following assignment: For 72 hours (back-to-back), avoid doing any of the following: checking or communicating via Facebook or MySpace (social networking sites); making calls from cell phones unless it is an emergency; and text-messaging, e-mailing, or accessing information from cell phones, iPhones, BlackBerries, and other handheld devices. After a short survey of my students on their use of technology, this seemed to be a tough challenge. Reflecting their generation’s use of technology, all students owned a cell phone, had their own Facebook profile, and relied on these to communicate regularly.³ Clearly, my students rely heavily on technology for communication.

After they identified a time and day to begin the challenge, I stressed that the fast must take place for 72 hours straight in part because it is a “challenge”; it should not be easy to do as a connected, wired member of the millennial generation who heavily relies on technology and social networking sites. If students were required to use any technological devices and/or social networking programs for work, they had to advise their supervisors or bosses beforehand. Although the project was due at the end of the semester, I suggested they try to complete the challenge by the 10th week of the semester. This gave us a few weeks to discuss the application of theorists’ ideas to their experiences and ask any questions they had of the process. After explaining the challenge, I laid out five series of cumulative questions to be answered in blue books provided to students as journals (see the Appendix).

I told students that they could write as many entries in the blue books as they wished, but they should indicate the time and day of each entry for the first few sets of questions. Since I read them as personal and reflective journals, I explained that I was evaluating them based on the questions that built on one another, beginning on the microlevel with their personal experiences and moving to the macrolevel. The first set of questions dealt with (1) project preparation. With these questions, I simply wanted students to think about how much they relied on their technology to communicate with others. I then asked about their (2) general feelings of the experience as they continued it over the three days of the fast, followed by questions about their (3) behavior and communication during the experience. With these questions, I asked students to comment on how their communication style was affected. These first three sets of questions are aimed at getting students to reflect upon and document their own behaviors. Their personal behaviors were grounded experiences from which to analyze more macrolevel questions related to social theory. Next, I asked students to think (4) historically, comparatively, and sociologically. These questions aimed to shift their thinking from the micro, biographical level to the macro and historical level. In this process, students begin to think about their lives and how they communicate within a historical and social context. Finally, I ask students to make (5) connections to social theory. Specifically, I ask students to think about questions that their experiences raise that sociologists or social theorists would be interested in or about how concepts or ideas offered by theorists could be applied to their experiences.

I graded projects based on effort, such as the number of times students commented on their feelings and behavioral changes and how thoroughly they addressed the macrolevel questions. For example, if they simply mentioned a theorist, they received less credit than if they explained how a theorist’s ideas or concepts fit with their experiences. Throughout the course, I often reviewed the historical trajectory of the theorists we covered to keep broad themes and questions in mind. On the day their journals were due, the students took turns discussing the various sets of questions I posed to them and explained what they liked or disliked about the project as a course requirement.

Assessment of the Challenge

In this section, I discuss the five series of questions, the students’ responses, and how and if they achieved the course learning outcomes. The first three sets of questions were aimed at getting students to reflect upon and document their own behaviors. The first set focused on (1) project preparation and how they let others know of the project. Students highlighted what it was like to tell others about the challenge. A number of students sent out mass e-mails, text messages, or postings on Facebook to let others know about the challenge. One student claimed,

11:30am: I had to tell my family and friends about this to prepare. Ironically, the fastest and most efficient way to do this was through a [Facebook] post. My post simply said: “wish me luck. no cell/phone/internet for 72 hours.”

Other students were struck by how interconnected they were to others via technology. I then asked them to reflect on their (2) general feelings about the experience over the three days of the fast, followed by their (3) behavior and communication, such as how their behavior changed during the fast. Their initial comments focused on negative feelings and experiences, such as feeling disconnected, anxious, “jittery,” and lonely. These are comments from various students:

10:00 am: I feel disconnected. . . . I wonder if I have any text [messages]? Will they get mad (those who don’t know) that I’m not replying back?

7:45 pm: I feel lonely. . . . I have no idea what people are doing.

However, after one day or so, a number of students began highlighting the positive aspects associated with being unplugged:

8:15 pm: It’s nice to not be distracted by [Facebook] while working. No distractions means I might get these papers done sooner than I thought.

A number of students pointed out the benefits of being able to focus on their immediate surroundings. Because talking with people face-to-face and in-depth was discussed in a positive way, some students cast the Internet as a “brainless, time-killing activity.”

8:30 pm: I’m working on papers and chatting with my friend sitting next to me. I sort of feel free, I guess. I’m focused on myself and not on others.

10:00 am: In classes, I’m paying attention more; no distraction from technology.

Other students pointed out the “social” reliance on technology. The act of fiddling with a cell phone filled a behavioral need. During the fast, one student referred to her automatic “reach” for her phone as “my phantom phone syndrome.” She added,

9:45 am: My phone is like my security blanket. It’s got my whole life stored in it, which is horrible to say. I also felt like I was reaching for it when I felt awkward or out of place in a store. It was almost like if I could be on my phone, I would have felt more comfortable.

Other students mentioned reliance on technology for doing calculations and accessing information. For example, these students commented on different ways they rely on technology:

1:30 pm: I reached for my phone to check on a how much something would cost with a discount. By not having my phone, I was forced to use mental math for the first time ever, today.

3:30 pm: I’m wishing I had access to my phone to check my bank account. I’m going to have to go to my bank to check . . . very strange and inconvenient.

The first three sets of questions required students to reflect upon their behavior with technology. The purpose for these questions served a second goal for this project, which was to help foster the sociological perspective among students. When students abstain from using technological gadgets, they are forced to consider their own habits, norms, behaviors, and values, which are shaped by their social context. But more importantly, these questions gave students intellectual grounding from which to apply theoretical ideas and concepts and think about their social context. The final two sets of questions connected students to the course material.

The fourth set of questions asked students to think (4) historically, comparatively, and sociologically. Here, their thinking must shift from the micro, biographical level to the macro and historical level. In this process, they begin to think about their lives as a cohort, comparatively and within a social context. A few referenced the negative impact technology has on society as a whole. Many emphasized the belief that in contemporary society people are lazy and probably feel more disconnected to others than in the past. Comparing their lives to people who lived 150 years ago, two different students claimed,

If you were bored, you had to make your own fun instead of just surfing the web. This in the long run is so much better for you. This allows people to be outside more and possibly even see the world differently, instead of just through a screen.

Taking away our email would be like taking away their mail. There are other ways to communicate, they just take longer. Therefore, I feel like taking away our phones is like taking away something (not necessity based) that they were dependent upon.

Students were critical of their individual behavior shaped by their context; characterizing themselves as a generation, many identified their reliance on technology. In class, I made the observation that many students felt the same way about their reliance on technology. A few made references to feeling impatient and needing a constant stimulus. One student said,

I can’t believe how sort of egocentric my ideas of communication are. . . . I felt this way because I kept having thoughts of “what if someone needs to reach me?” What if someone has a question for me or needs to tell me something?” In our society we are so scheduled. It’s hard not to constantly check [my cell phone].

In class, we spoke about people who have access to technology. One student made a reference to social class and access to technology.

Speaking of a “smart” phone—I can do everything with it. I would probably feel less fortunate than others without it—it’s that terrible?! Phones are constant competition—who has the best?

In this set of questions, students were required to think historically by comparing their behavior to that of other generations. This set of questions was hard for some students to answer and discuss because it required them to reflect on historical changes and speculate on how societies change. A few students were able to conclude that communication is central to human society; it also changes in form and affects human relationships.

Finally, I ask students to make (5) connections to sociological theory, such as theorists’ concepts and the questions they posed about society. I connected these questions to my course learning objectives, such as understanding the central questions and concerns that theorists had about society. This set of questions was most challenging for students to answer; the questions required class discussions around the themes that drove the work of theorists. But many students were able to apply ideas and concepts from the course to their experiences.

A number of students posed questions that they thought theorists would ask about technology and society, such as the topic of the societal consequences of their reliance on technology. One student asked, “How does the use of technology change peoples’ interactions over time?” A number of students made connections to specific theorists’ concerns and provided questions that they thought a theorist would ask about society and individuals. Some made connections to Durkheim’s concern with solidarity. One student asked,

Like him, I want to know what holds society together. How do we stay connected? Has our moral commitment to creating a cohesive society change through the years along with technology?

Students also applied microlevel theorists such as Cooley and Simmel to their experiences. One student stated,

Cell phones have made life much easier but have resulted in people becoming too reliant on them and being disconnected from the outside world. Cooley can be applied to our technology-dependent society. We use technology now as a main socialization method; how does this change the way people socialize?

Some students were able to apply the theorists’ concepts to their experiences. One student discussed Comte’s concepts of social statics and social dynamics, or patterns in society versus social change. “As Comte introduced, people may communicate the same over time; it’s just that technology or how we communicate changes.” Another referenced Simmel:

Simmel was interested in the Stranger. He would most likely want to study the interactions between people who have never met yet have been talking online. Many people are on dating websites trying to make connections, but they are still strangers.

Many students made connections to the theorists’ ideas and concepts in this final part of the project, but in general it was a struggle for most students. Although this last set of questions helped in achieving some of the learning goals of the class, the process required classroom discussion on these questions. It was also helpful for students to hear about other students’ applications to theorists as we discussed their journals.

Limitations and Applications

Overall, this experiential project helped my students foster a sociological perspective, think about their lives in a historical and social context by requiring them to alter the way they communicate and live their lives, and reflect on theoretical ideas and concepts. However, there are a few limitations to this project were it to be adapted for other classrooms. First, despite being an engaging assignment for students, many struggled with applying theoretical questions and concepts to their experiences. Complementing course requirements, this project requires deliberate synthesizing of experience and course material for students to make intellectual connections. This should be done as a class and with the help of the instructor. To elicit better responses, a few questions could be narrowed, such as “What kinds of concerns or questions would [theorist] have or ask about your experience?” Second, a few students “blew off” this assignment as indicated by few and simplistic entries in their journals and limited reflection. This may have happened for a few reasons: lack of interest, demands on their time and lives by others, or laziness. Ways to address this might include deducting points for not doing work, reducing the time required for the fast, or asking students to choose the technological device they will be giving up. Third, this project worked well for my students who are of traditional college age. As millennials, they have had and used cell phones for most of their lives, and all grew up with the Internet. Although it would be interesting in a mixed age class, non-traditional-age students might find the project less challenging if they do not use handheld devices or cell phones frequently or if they are not on social networking sites. The assignment would need to be altered to capture the experiences of different age groups. Similarly, another limitation is related to access to technology. It is possible that despite the widespread use of technology among millennials, the cost of owning handheld devices may prevent students from disadvantaged social classes from experiencing the impact of a technology fast. The assignment could be altered so as to ask students to avoid another kind of technology, such as television.

Given these limitations, it remains a potentially interesting project for a range of sociology classes beyond classical and contemporary sociological theory, such as in an Introduction to Sociology course where questions could focus on developing a sociological perspective. Used in a course on social inequality, questions could prompt students to think about access to and knowledge of technology. Finally, used in a class on technology, communities, mass media, or popular culture, students (who are of the traditional college age) could be required to interview someone who remembers a time without the technology they use now. This comparative experience could be woven into course material.

Conclusion

I found this project to be a powerful learning activity for my students, even with the struggle to connect their experiences to theoretical issues. Two components stood out to me. First, as an instructor I found their journals quite enjoyable to read. Many entries were amusing as students worked through the challenge. Comments from different students included

8:12 am: I just woke up to an actual alarm clock . . . it seemed like I fumbled around looking for the off switch forever!

2:53 pm: Still alive.

9:00 pm: [I am] completely BORED!

Beyond the humor that they expressed in this project, however, I believe that it helped foster the two initial goals I set out to accomplish: applying theorists’ ideas and questions to students’ reflections and helping students to develop a sociological perspective. Because the majority of the students seemed to enjoy the project as an interesting personal challenge, their experiences provided an excellent base to which we could apply and discuss course concepts. In our class discussions, I helped them make connections as an age cohort and helped them identify the sociological themes from the theorists we covered in class. In the words of one student,

Overall, it was a good experience and one that would benefit others. It makes me wonder what will be around when I have children. Will I like the new technology? Will I limit their use? Will I still be connected?

Perhaps these are questions for future theory students.

Footnotes

Appendix

For 72 hours (back-to-back), AVOID doing any of the following: checking/communicating via Facebook/MySpace (social networking sites); making calls from cell phones unless it’s an emergency; text-messaging/e-mailing/accessing information from cell phones/iPhones/BlackBerries/other handheld devices.

Notes

References

Ahlkvist

Jarl A.

2001. “Sound and Vision: Using Progressive Rock to Teach Social Theory.” Teaching Sociology 29(4):471-82.

Cornwell

Grant H.

2001. “The Future of Liberal Education and the Hegemony of Market Values: Privilege, Practicality, and Citizenship.” Liberal Education 87(3). Retrieved July 12, 2011 ( http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-su01/le-su01feature.cfm ).

Donaghy

Mary L.

2000. “Simulating Television Programs as a Tool to Teach Social Theory.” Teaching Sociology 28(1):67-70.

Fails

Eleanor V.

1988. “Teaching Sociological Theory through Video: The Development of an Experiential Strategy.” Teaching Sociology 16(3):256-62.

Holtzman

Melissa

. 2005. “Teaching Sociological Theory through Active Learning: The Irrigation Exercise.” Teaching Sociology 33(2):206-12.

Johnson

Diane Elizabeth

. 2001. “Teaching for Mastery: Focus on Social Theory.” Teaching Sociology 29(2): 163-80.

Kain

Edward

. 2007. “The Sociology Major at Institutions of Higher Education in the United States.” Teaching Sociology 35(1):31-47.

Keeter

Scott

Taylor

Paul

. 2009. “The Millennials.” Pew Research Center Publications. Retrieved July 12, 2011 ( http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1437/millennials-profile ).

Lippmann

Stephen

Aldrich

Howard

. 2003. “The Rationalization of Everything? Using Ritzer’s McDonaldization Thesis to Teach Weber.” Teaching Sociology 31(2):134-45.

10.

Lowney

Kathleen S.

1998. “Reducing ‘Theory Anxiety’ through Puzzles.” Teaching Sociology 26(1):69-73.

11.

McKinney

Kathleen

Howery

Carla B.

Strand

Kerry J.

Kain

Edward L.

Berheide

Catherine White

. 2004. Liberal Learning and the Sociology Major Updated: Meeting the Challenge of Teaching Sociology in the Twenty-first Century. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

12.

Orum

Anthony M.

1980. “On Teaching Social Theory to Undergraduates.” Teaching Sociology 8(1): 95-103.

13.

Reid

Geneva

. 2010. “Prof’s Assignment: Dump Tech Gadgets for 5 Days.” HigherEdMorning, March. Retrieved March 24, 2010 ( http://www.higheredmorning.com/profs-assignment-dump-tech-gadgets-for-5-days ).

14.

Scarboro

Allen

. 2004. “Bringing Theory Closer to Home through Active Learning and Online Discussion.” Teaching Sociology 32(2):222-31.

15.

Segady

Thomas

. 1990. “Teaching the Classics.” Teaching Sociology 18(2):214-17.

16.

Silver

Ira

Perez

Gina

. 1998. “Teaching Social Theory through Students’ Participant-observation.” Teaching Sociology 26(4):347-53.

17.

Sturgis

Richard B.

1983. “Conversations with Theorists.” Teaching Sociology 10(2):275-80.