Beach Haven

​CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Edited by Craig Calhoun, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff, and Indermohan Virk
Blackwell Publishing, 2007, 496 pages

 
The work by Calhoun et al is an anthology, and covers a range of writers. It is set up sections more or less by topic. In each section the editors give some introductory thoughts on the topic, and then post extensive portions of applicable published works by sociological thought leaders. Sometimes the papers are shared in whole, other times in part, but the works themselves are the central offering more than the interpretation of the editors.
​
Shared in the volume is a fairly broad cross section of the base theories of sociology. Many of the works contained are extensively cited throughout academia. 

​CAPITALISM AND MODERN SOCIAL THEORY
By Anthony Giddens
Cambridge University Press, 1971, 261 pages

​ 
Subtitled An analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, it is a review of some of the major thoughts expressed by the three referenced authors. Giddens reviews some life history of each of the theorists, and offers interpretation and context. He shares snippets of the actual writings, but is focused more on explanation than quotation.
 
The work reads like a text book. The history surrounding the authors’ lives are helpful in understanding some of their philosophical direction. Other thought leaders preceded these three men and had an influence on them, but Giddens sees much of what they write as original and foundational to many future publications of successor sociologists. Their philosophies differ in many ways from each other.

THE QUOTABLE DAD
Edited by Nick & Tony Lyons
Main Street, 2004, 292 pages

​
Don't let the number of pages impress or intimidate. This book is a compendium of quotes by famous dads on topics connected with fatherhood. Each page is a single quote so the reading is not a heavy lift. The quoted include authors, comedians, presidents, musicians, sports figures, and actors. Some are entertaining, others reflective. 

The book was a present to me from our twins. At least it may be from both of them or just from Emily with Jake adding himself. The original inscription was from neither of them, but an unattributed note saying 'Happy Fathers Day, June 20015.' In different ink and handwriting the 2005 is crossed out and 2015 is written underneath it.  Below that is 'Love ya dad!' Still after is read 'From you favorite child, Emily,' followed by a heart. After Emily's note it says, '..... And Jake.'

Only the two of them know if they were in cahoots or if Jake snuck in. Either way it seems as just another statement on the nature of fatherhood.

​THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor F. Pinch
The MIT Press, 1989, 405 pages
Reviewed by Michael Beach
​ 
This is a volume containing a number of key papers focused on various aspects of ideas around the social constructionist argument. Thomas Hughes writes that technological systems “are both socially constructed and society shaping.” In particular Hughes writes in part, and is often quoted in the other works, about the connections at the borders of the socio-technological systems. What is in the system (artifacts, social groups, political forces, etc.), and what is not in the system? He notes that systems can include “legislative artifacts, such as regulatory laws.” He also argues that since social systems are actually builders, at least in part, of any system being analyzed, the student of these systems should avoid designating them as “environment” or “context”. In trying to define, then, what is part of a system and what is not part of a system, Hughes points to a concept he calls “degrees of freedom” or rather the amount of influence any artifact, be they thing, person, or group, has on the eventual technology created.

Many of the other papers published in The Social Construction of Technological Systems in varying degrees clarify or repute some aspects of this portion of the social construction position. I don’t mean to say the other papers focus only on Hughes’ positions, but this particular point about system definition is visited often. Michel Callon, for example, continues the idea of clarification of inclusion. He changes the idea of systems for the idea of actor networks. Callon seeks to “simplify” networks by considering any technological system as a network of systems and subsystems. Any of the subsystems could be decomposed, but in doing so, he argues, there is a point at which no additional information is gained. In fact deepening the complexity of the study of some network artifacts can actually confuse important issues. Callon, then seeks to define connections at the border of a network. Others argue if subsystems are simplified into a sort of “black box” then important issues are missed, or not clarified. For example, one could consider social groups that are directly affected by technological decisions, but have no say in how decisions are made. By only considering those who had a voice in a decision, social constructionists are not noting how a technology might have evolved differently. By considering only the inputs and outputs, black-boxing, important social understanding is missed both by the creators of technology, and by the students of social constructionism.
​
There is strength in many of the arguments in support of social constructionism. It gives more insight into many, though not all, the influences (inputs) and results (outputs) of technological advancement, or at least what is considered in the literature as advancement. Previous positions of technological determinism focused mostly on the specific technology developed, and the scientists or inventors who created them. From that perspective, influence is one way, technology directs society. In the social construction point of view there is a two-way interaction. Technology change influences change in society, but social attitudes also influence technological focus and decisions. Where these perspectives are less strong has to do with the boundaries of the systems, or networks, studied. Whenever a boundary is created, real or philosophical, there is automatically an inclusion and exclusion. One additional example of the weakness of not considering those not involved in the decisions can be shown in the increased use of technology-based communications systems. Intended to allow for more interaction among people, some argue in fact the opposite has happened. Remote communications enables people to have less face-to-face interaction so community is weakened by the technology, not strengthened. Ed Shane makes a strong argument about this issue in his book Disconnected America. Subtitled The Consequences of Mass Media in a Narcissistic World. Shane points out, among other things, that when we choose to interact more online instead of in person we tend to seek groups of people who are like-minded with us. By doing so we lessen the circle of ideas and perspectives we consider so our perspectives are narrowed, not broadened. In the real world, Shane points out, we interact with many people by chance in public settings. For instance if we go to the store we interact with store employees and other customers. We lose that interaction if we just order what we want online. The articles in the SCOT book are certainly helpful for understanding the latest thinking of the Science, Technology and Society (STS) community. By shifting from the general, high-level philosophical concepts espoused by camps like technological determinists to the idea of breaking down and identifying influencers of systems based on actual technology examples, a better understanding emerges. I think as STS thought advances, there is more room for similar study of groups who might not have the chance to influence, but are surely influenced by technological decisions.

​SOME FRUITS OF SOLITUDE
By William Penn
Grolier Enterprises Corp., 1985, 82 pages
​Reviewed by Michael Beach
 
This author is the famous settler of the British colony that came to be known as Pennsylvania in northeastern America. The particular volume of this review is a compendium that includes the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and the journal kept by John Woolman. I shared a review of those sections in earlier editions of the BHP.
 
Penn converted to the Quaker sect in 1667 at the age of 23. It put him at odds with the royal crown that had deeded him the Pennsylvania territory. He worked to regain graces and went back and forth between the old world and the new. He died in 1718 in England.
 
The work in question reads like a set of proverbs as the author shares his views on many topics. Those of this work are drawn from many papers he wrote over decades. It is an interesting look into the mind of a 17th century thinker and leader. Since he lived about 100 years prior to the American Revolutionary War there is little in it of that spirit. He pushes in much of the writings to lift people through education, then goes on to offer his ideas that should be part of a developed person’s education. Themes include matters of character such as charity, avarice, pride, etc. There are also musings of important social issues of the day such as discipline, justice, right marriage, obedience to parents, and the like.
 
Though there is not much of history in the text itself, the reader gains a sense of the historical moment Penn was living in. He was educated in the perspectives of his time and was a leader of people. It’s safe to say that much of his view was common among those of his sect, but also of much of the American population of the late 1600’s. 

THE AGE OF REASON
By Thomas Paine
Watchmaker Publishing, 2010, 195 Pages
​Reviewed by Michael Beach

The original work was published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1809, though the final version is delineated as parts I and II. The focus of the treatise is to show why the Bible and Christianity cannot be true. Paine also espouses the philosophy of Deism. 

The author does not question the existence of God. In fact he argues, from the point of view of Deism, that the proof of the existence of God can be found in the discoveries of science. However, he draws the line at any knowledge of truth beyond what can be proven through science. 

Most of the book is an examination of passages of the Bible and how they either disprove the validity of the Bible itself, or of some accepted traditional Christian (specifically Catholic or Protestant) belief about what a given passage means. Paine makes logical arguments, but they are based, as he says, solely on the text as it appears in the Bible and from the perspective of his own concurrent context. Much of the work feels like a mix of reasonable logic, conjecture, and church doctrine. Since he adds conjecture and then existent church doctrine he is, in fact, not sticking only to the text of the Bible as he claims. Viewing any writing outside of the context in which it was written can also cause the sort of argument Paine points to.

I have very specific views of his philosophical perspectives and will not tackle them here as this is a review of the book. I will post a few of my personal views in my Blog at bhaven.org/blog.html