Sociology 303
Sociological Theory
Fall 2002
Prof. Scott SchafferFirst Paper Assignment -- Weber (Expository Assignment)
Due Date: Tuesday September 24/2002, at the start of class. No late papers will be accepted without a compelling and well-documented excuse given in advance of the due date.
Rules of the Game: This paper is to be a minimum of 3 (three) full and complete pages; there is no maximum length for the paper, so you should write until your paper is fully developed. Your paper must be typewritten, double-spaced, on 8 1/2" by 11" paper. Your paper must have a cover page, on which a creative title ("First Paper Assignment" is simply not creative enough), your name, the number of the topic to which you're responding, and any other pertinent information should appear; your name should not appear anywhere else in the paper.
Your paper must be spell- and grammar-checked; papers that have copious errors will automatically lose two full letter grades and may be returned for editing; if returned, you will have three calendar days to resubmit the paper or you will receive a zero on the assignment. This will also ensure that any other papers submitted in a shoddy fashion will receive a zero (0). You should follow all guidelines in the "How to Write a Schaffer Paper" handout; these guidelines will serve as the basis for my evaluation of your work. And finally, no direct quotations are permitted in this paper; any materials you use to support your argument must be paraphrased and cited following the guidelines in the paper-writing handout.
Assignment: You are to develop an argument in response to one of the two following topics. Ensure that your paper is not limited to a recitation of Weber's writings or my lectures, but that you use those materials to develop an argument that clearly expresses your thoughts on the matter. Be sure to show from what parts of Weber and Sewell you are deriving your conclusions by citing every section to which you refer.
Please note that each paper contains an outline within it. You should not think of the latter two questions as "one sentence" questions; rather, your response to them should be an argumentative statement supported by paraphrased and cited evidence from the book. In any case, be sure to fully explicate your reasoning behind the claims you make.
The Topics:
1. Using Sewell's two versions of structure (opposite pole vs. continuum) as filters, discuss the elements of Weber's discussion of the development of the Protestant ethic that would meet the criteria for each version of structure. Then, discuss the ways in which these elements of structure can be understood in both the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. To what extent do you think that Weber would say that the orientation to the amassing of wealth brought into being by the Protestant ethic are beneficial or detrimental to people, and why?
2. Using Sewell's definition of agency, discuss the elements of the development of the Protestant ethic that would meet the criteria for agency. Then, discuss the extent to which Weber would argue that the agency we have in our current capitalist society appears in our orientation to amassing wealth, as well as the kind of agency Weber would like to see (if this differs from our current agency). How do you think Weber would argue our orientation to the amassing of wealth needs to be changed in order to reflect Weber's "ideal" conception of agency, and why?
Structure of the Paper:
This outline is intended to give you a basic structure for the analysis you're about to embark on in this paper. Be sure to follow it. Also, you should not think of each section or sub-section of this assignment as an entity separate from the others; make sure that each paragraph, sub-section, and section directly and clearly leads to the next.
I. Introductory Remarks
A. Attention-grabbing statement
B. Thesis statement: "In this paper, I will argue that..."
C. Path statement: "In order to argue this, I will first ... then... then..."
II. Sewell's concept of structure or agency
A. Structure or agency defined and clarified
B. Criteria for recognizing a type of social action as "structure" or "agency"
C. Support for your claims about (B)
III. Looking at Weber through Sewell's concept of structure or agency
A. Weber's basic argument about the Protestant ethic and the development of capitalism
B. What elements of this argument would be seen through concept of structure or agency
C. Support for your claim about (B)
IV. Weber's discussion of our orientation to money
A. Statement of evaluation: (structure) how elements of opposite pole and continuum forms of structure are reflected in our orientation to money (describe this orientation); (agency) if agency is reflected in our orientation to money (describe this orientation), as well as Weber's ideal version of agency and how the situation needs to be changed
B. Development of your reasons for your claim in (A)
C. Support for your claim about (A)
V. Closure: Critical evaluation of Weber's work
A. Your response to the last question
B. Development of your reasons for your claim in (A)
C. Support for your claim about (A)
D. Extension of these remarks -- think about the implications of what you say in this section and what that might mean as far as this course or society goes