Contemporary Theory 聯絡用
[updated=>after 2nd tuto]
補課 ==〉6 Mar (Fri) 1:20-3:20pm
内容:
美國社會學理論思想史解説
Levi-Strauss and 結構主義 (Ben)
閲讀資料：
required: 神話與意義（中文）=> 一般地讀
然後以下選一份：
1/ Strutural Study of Myth =>
有些地方比較難，但嘗試讀一次。
如果不想看英文....
OR
請從頭到尾看一次以下動畫片：
2/ " Baccano ! " (第1-13集）
http://www.tudou.com/playlist/id/3643849/
觀看指示
a. 不管明不明白，也從第一集開始看到第13集
b. 第一次看不明白不要緊，總之先繼續看
c. 不要回頭看，不要翻前看
d. 我們上tuto的時候再看一次
Bonus Track:
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5206/snapshot20061028140641sz7.png
[更新 1st tuto]
==〉已印好Parsons，請到房門口拿
==>已訂“規訓與懲罰”中文版9本
[時刻表]
6/2
Parsons (Hamilton eds 4 parts)
20/2
Berger & Luckmann part 1 + 2
Goffman ch 1 + conclu
Grafinkel ch 1
20/3
Levi-Strauss Myth and Meaning (chinese) + Structural Study of Myth
Foucault“規訓與懲罰”+ Archaelogy of Knowldge part I(?) + part II
17/4 Habermas Strutural Transformation of the Public Sphere Party V + Interview
21/4
Beck Risk Society chapter 1,2
Bourdieu An invitation to Reflexive Sociology (chinese: 264-320, 45-106)
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
政治思考/社會學思考1
SY Ma的政治思考（四）
如何distinguish這是廣告另外一個不是？
什麽東西motivate 人去找新的知識？
放在一個思路覺得是理由，
轉了思路，爲什麽看似真理的變了不是？
What constitutes a good reason
--------------------------------------
Tony Tam的社會學思考(1)
For Chris
contigency theory x
qualification of institutional argument but not itself an institutional argument
ciririsim ok
situation specified
general couter punch
not institutional mechanism
not a replacement / edited mechanism
upper: legitimacy constrainst people behave
impact
core still the same不是修正
story line not so straightforward
on myself:
argument/historical case是一個完美地show到制度化的school所夢想有的一個analysis,可以economical/political/cultural interest都能inteplay with institutional legitimacy的結構
t is very interstingcos it's so perfectly an institutional analysisthen say, no need to think of any explanatory problem or thereotical puzzle
perhaps can organize chapters into roughly three categories(economic / political / cultural interest)then argue all of them across history is strictly institutional buildingperfectly matching Meyer's framework
cos he said, institutional arguments to his best of knowdlge, always avoid to talk about problems of agency and/or interest
they talk about legitimacy, which is indeed important, but discard how agencies frame their interest by interplay and approapirate collective discourses to draw legitimacy
when i use the word"frame" he said he prefers the later two works
o him, as people who agree more to rational choice, whatever frame or interplay is ok. the point is he is very interested of instutional arugment do account this case very much
n my case, all interests (pol/eco/cul) are perfectly appeared and succesfully developed that "institutional structure" in consecutive periods for a wide variety of diversed interests, which are mircaely devoted to frame their words and actions , contributing to the building of institution.
如何distinguish這是廣告另外一個不是？
什麽東西motivate 人去找新的知識？
放在一個思路覺得是理由，
轉了思路，爲什麽看似真理的變了不是？
What constitutes a good reason
--------------------------------------
Tony Tam的社會學思考(1)
For Chris
contigency theory x
qualification of institutional argument but not itself an institutional argument
ciririsim ok
situation specified
general couter punch
not institutional mechanism
not a replacement / edited mechanism
upper: legitimacy constrainst people behave
impact
core still the same不是修正
story line not so straightforward
on myself:
argument/historical case是一個完美地show到制度化的school所夢想有的一個analysis,可以economical/political/cultural interest都能inteplay with institutional legitimacy的結構
t is very interstingcos it's so perfectly an institutional analysisthen say, no need to think of any explanatory problem or thereotical puzzle
perhaps can organize chapters into roughly three categories(economic / political / cultural interest)then argue all of them across history is strictly institutional buildingperfectly matching Meyer's framework
cos he said, institutional arguments to his best of knowdlge, always avoid to talk about problems of agency and/or interest
they talk about legitimacy, which is indeed important, but discard how agencies frame their interest by interplay and approapirate collective discourses to draw legitimacy
when i use the word"frame" he said he prefers the later two works
o him, as people who agree more to rational choice, whatever frame or interplay is ok. the point is he is very interested of instutional arugment do account this case very much
n my case, all interests (pol/eco/cul) are perfectly appeared and succesfully developed that "institutional structure" in consecutive periods for a wide variety of diversed interests, which are mircaely devoted to frame their words and actions , contributing to the building of institution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
