Classical Sociological Theory and Foundations of American Sociology
What’s covered is covered thoroughly. The chapters on Marx and Engels, Durkheim, and Weber are detailed, getting into the nuances of the theorists’ lives and how their experiences and historical contexts influenced their theoretical agendas. For each of the classical theorists, a wide variety of texts are consulted (from the theorists' published work to excerpts of speeches and biographies written by contemporaries). However, the influence of other important classical theorists (Auguste Comte, Georg Simmel, Abdel Rahman Ibn-Khaldun, etc.) is overlooked. If the book was presented explicitly as addressing the impact of Marx, Engels, Durkheim, and Weber on the development of American sociology, then I would consider it to have been very effective in its mission. However, it seems misleading to title this “Classical Sociological Theory,” when so many of the classical theorists are not even mentioned.
Although there is some interpretation that goes with the framing of any academic subject, I think the author does a nice job of documenting sources and providing reasonable justifications for the claims made in this book.
There is clear effort to make the material relevant to modern audiences. One of the major criticisms of classical theory is the extent to which it seems detached from modern concerns. In this book, every sub-section begins with a paragraph about “Why this is important and what to look for,” that not only demonstrates relevance but also alerts the reader regarding what to focus on in the coming text for evidence of that relevance. This is one of the biggest strengths of the book.
The book is written in a clear and accessible fashion, and, when sociological key words are introduced, they are explained carefully. The book also facilitates personal reinforcement of key concepts to increase clarity; for example, there is an exercise (beginning on pg. 93) which provides a template for the student to create a mini-dictionary of key concepts from Marx and Engels with page/line numbers for ease of reference. Some of the concepts listed include “alienation,” “bourgeoisie,” “capital,” and other important contributions from Marx and Engels. Similar mini-dictionary templates are set up for Durkheim and Weber.
Internal consistency between sections tends to be high. The general format is: 1) a biography of the theorist(s); 2) passages from the original work of the theorist or theorists (followed by “questions for contemplation and discussion”); and 3) mini-dictionaries templates with blanks for definitions and notes. However, the chapters addressing early American sociology lack the reinforcement exercise of creating mini-dictionaries found after the earlier chapters on the classical theorists. It would be nice if there was some sort of follow-up exercise facilitated by the later chapters to guide students through identifying how concepts in early American sociology emanated directly from the ideas of the classical theorists discussed in earlier chapters. That is, after all, appears to be a major goal of the book.
It’s quite easy to break the text into smaller reading sections, as the book is already divided into relatively short and targeted pieces—each with its own introductory set-up. Subheadings are abundant and appreciated.
The organization is sensible, following chronological order. The book begins with Marx and Engels and traces the history of classical theory through Durkheim and, then, to Weber. In Part IV, the early American sociologists are similarly discussed in chronological order. This makes perfect sense, given that contemporary theory builds on or reacts to years of previous classical theory.
The interface is accessible and reasonable. I didn’t have any problems with navigation or issues with display features. Everything looks clear and presentable.
I did not catch any grammatical errors. (In a book this large, it’s possible that I missed something, but, at the very least, there weren’t any grammatical errors significant enough for me to notice them.
On the one hand, the author does not present things in an overtly culturally insensitive or offensive manner (although some of the theorists represented in the text (such as Sumner) certainly do)). On the other hand, there isn’t a lot of inclusivity in terms of gender, race, or ethnicity. Aside from Du Bois, we primarily see an emphasis on white theorists. Aside from Perkins Gilman and Addams, the emphasis is primarily on male theorists. This is somewhat unavoidable given the historical emphasis on white men’s theoretical work (in terms of publication and dissemination). However, I think more could have been done. For example, in Ritzer and Stepnisky’s competing textbook on sociological theory, an explicit point is made about how many people think of Auguste Comte as the “father of sociology,” but his ideas were predated by those of Abdel Rahman Ibn-Khaldun (a North African Muslim) by many years.
Hurst argues that this book deserves consideration--despite the presence of a number of viable alternatives—because it is open source (which is great in terms of accessibility for students but not necessarily enough by itself, as content at cost is preferable to free materials that don’t meet expectations). I wish there was more in the classical theory section beyond Marx/Engels, Durkheim, and Weber. Hurst suggests that “The concepts of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim are our shared language.” While that’s true to some extent, it’s also rather arbitrary. Those three were not the most important at all points historically, and the intense focus on them reifies the canon to the detriment of a more diverse understanding of social theory. The author says that this book is more than just “outdated ideas” from “19th century Dead White Guys,” but it’s still pretty significantly about the traditional sociological theory canon.