Why do A level sociology textbooks include Marxist perspectives.

Marxism is all but dead in the UK, infact it never was really alive. The most notbale Marxist in recent times is Arthur Scargill, who was crushed by Thatcher and very unpopular in his time. Marxism doesn't even get a whiff of mainstream politics in the UK and revolutionary activity is frankly pathetic and negligible,

Marxism is all but dead in the UK, infact it never was really alive. The most notbale Marxist in recent times is Arthur Scargill, who was crushed by Thatcher and very unpopular in his time. Marxism doesn't even get a whiff of mainstream politics in the UK and revolutionary activity is frankly pathetic and negligible,

Sociology is a left wing pseudoscience. If you want to understand why human society is the way it is, rather than be indoctrinated in socialist pamphleteering, study economics.

If you want to actually understand complex system scientifically study physics or maths and specialism in non linear systems.

Economics is a psuedo-science most of the time you ding bat.


+1 Necromancy

words

Here is how wikipedia defines economics:

"Economics is the social science that studies the behavior of individuals, groups, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), when they manage or use scarce resources, which have alternative uses, to achieve desired ends."

and sociology:

"Sociology is the study of human social behavior and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions.[1] It is a social science which uses various methods of empirical investigation[2] and critical analysis[3] to develop a body of knowledge about human social actions, social structure and functions."

These seem to be almost the same discipline - the only difference being that sociology also uses something called "critical theory" in addition to scientific methods. Wikipedia describes "critical theory" in this way:

"In philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

...

"Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it."

So sociology is a form of pseudoscience, which uses some scientific methods but whose purpose is ultimately to promote one particular set of value judgements in order to change society, not to "only" observe and explain the world as it is.

Here is how wikipedia defines economics:

"Economics is the social science that studies the behavior of individuals, groups, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), when they manage or use scarce resources, which have alternative uses, to achieve desired ends."

and sociology:

"Sociology is the study of human social behavior and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions.[1] It is a social science which uses various methods of empirical investigation[2] and critical analysis[3] to develop a body of knowledge about human social actions, social structure and functions."

These seem to be almost the same discipline - the only difference being that sociology also uses something called "critical theory" in addition to scientific methods. Wikipedia describes "critical theory" in this way:

"In philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

...

"Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it."

So sociology is a form of pseudoscience, which uses some scientific methods but whose purpose is ultimately to promote one particular set of value judgements in order to change society, not to "only" observe and explain the world as it is.

Marxism is all but dead in the UK, infact it never was really alive. The most notbale Marxist in recent times is Arthur Scargill, who was crushed by Thatcher and very unpopular in his time. Marxism doesn't even get a whiff of mainstream politics in the UK and revolutionary activity is frankly pathetic and negligible,

I study sociology, and psychology, and can say with some confidence that you're entirely wrong. I think the confusion here is the term 'critical theory' in which your definition is concerned with psychology. Not sociology.

I don't see how that can be. To refer again to the quote I provided:

"Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it."

Of course some sociologists may avoid this critical theory aspect, and concentrate on an essentially economic analysis, and they may produce entirely useful work. But they do not seem to represent the whole field.

Sociology doesn't promote one way of thinking, quite the opposite, it teaches how people learn, how they congregate, and why they congregate in certain ways. It doesn't say things are right or wrong, simply that they exist and then tells you how and why they do.

And as far as Economics is concerned, it may be able to explain society in some ways, but cant go any way to explain things like primary and secondary socialisation in modern society. Don't assume you know everything about a subject you don't study. It's bloody annoying.

First of all, sorry about the definition thing, I was extremely tired and thinking of another piece of terminology.

Frankly I'm not sure whether sociology is a science, in many ways it is much like psychology.

Often what is widely accepted cannot be said to be absolute fact. It can be observed that the children of the Bushmen of the Kalahari learn via secondary socialisation, this is falsifiable.

Similarly, Anne Oakley's Housewife Study is falsifiable, if you went out and produced evidence that she was wrong, it would be accepted. You can prove her wrong.

However, questions such as 'Is Marxism still relevant as a social theory in modern Russia' is subjective, there are many views and perspectives to consider. The subject (to learn, at least) is nothing to do with being indoctrinated into a way of thinking. Similar to religious studies, it's about taking everyone's views into account to be able to form your own opinion about certain topics.

I don't know about whether you are talking about as a subject or as a profession, but as a subject, I have never experienced what you're talking about and found that my own experience is one that is fairly consistent in most schools and colleges.

Here is how wikipedia defines economics:

"Economics is the social science that studies the behavior of individuals, groups, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), when they manage or use scarce resources, which have alternative uses, to achieve desired ends."

and sociology:

"Sociology is the study of human social behavior and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions.[1] It is a social science which uses various methods of empirical investigation[2] and critical analysis[3] to develop a body of knowledge about human social actions, social structure and functions."

These seem to be almost the same discipline - the only difference being that sociology also uses something called "critical theory" in addition to scientific methods. Wikipedia describes "critical theory" in this way:

"In philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

...

"Critical theory was first defined by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of sociology in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory: Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it."

So sociology is a form of pseudoscience, which uses some scientific methods but whose purpose is ultimately to promote one particular set of value judgements in order to change society, not to "only" observe and explain the world as it is.

Economics is the biggest pseudoscience going, how many economists predicted the 2008 crisis? oh wait a minute