Classical Sociological Theory and Foundations of American Sociology

Reviewed by Kristin Marsh, Professor of Sociology, University of Mary Washington on 6/17/24

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Hurst limits central coverage to Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber, the ubiquitous three white, male, European theorists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This is an unfortunate limitation for instructors seeking to destabilize the canon and broaden coverage to include theorists who had been “written out” of the history of sociology (see Lengermann & Neibrugge, The Women Founders). That limitation aside, the coverage in each section is refreshingly extensive. Excerpts are well chosen and represent each of these theorists well.
The fourth major section includes several American sociologists, which—because of the greater number of sociologists covered--accommodates Charlotte Perkins Gilman and W.E.B. DuBois. The limitation of this section comes with tough choices Hurst had to make for each sociologist. For example, although I appreciate the importance of DuBois’ early appeal for scientific evidence as a corrective to bias on the sociology of race, the development of his writing is much more interesting when shown over time. The objective, rational tone of The Philadelphia Negro provides a stark contrast to the subjectivity and passion in The Souls of Black Folk and Darkwater.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

Hurst documents everything thoroughly and her sources are easy to locate. Although I disagree with the framing of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber as an exclusive set of founding theorists, their ideas are represented accurately. I especially appreciated the thorough and careful referencing. Really user friendly and easy to confirm.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Hurst takes a loose translation approach and warns the reader to keep this in mind. The way she does this is by updating gender pronouns (switching between male and female pronouns instead of relying solely on male pronouns). As our language begins to accommodate they/their pronouns more fully, an update would be straightforward. In several excerpts, she also substitutes contemporary examples for less accessible ones.
Note: I personally don’t like these updates in the text itself. I don’t mind it in secondary text that explains the theorists’ ideas with contemporary examples, but I prefer that to be secondary rather than see the translation itself updated. Establishing the continued relevance of classical theory seems to me the role of the instructor and class discussion. Text-readers often utilize the author’s introductory sections to explain contemporary relevance of 19th century writing and to help make the language more accessible. I used Hurst’s text during the pandemic and my students found it a bit confusing, because they were trying to grapple with the historical context. But all this doesn’t actually undermine relevance; it just made it a bit harder for me to use.

Clarity rating: 5

The author has done an excellent job of identifying important concepts and designing the book to include excerpts that explain those concepts. The term list at the end of each section would be very helpful for students concerned with knowing what to study and what they “need to know.”

Consistency rating: 4

Consistency between sections is quite good, perhaps save for the section on American sociologists.

Modularity rating: 5

One could easily assign specific portions as stand-alone readings.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The introduction is extremely important for understanding (1) the author’s approach to the translated text and translator’s asides and (2) giving students the central themes in the historical context of 19th century Europe. Understanding the historical context (and sweeping changes to social life) could perhaps work better as a stand-alone chapter; and students might benefit from reminders of the most salient parts of that context throughout each theorists’ section.
Other reviewers have found the flow to be good. I had a bit of trouble getting used to it; for example, in the section with Engels’ and others’ tributes to Marx, I had a hard time figuring out where one excerpt ended and another began (whether section headings were just that or were indicating the next reading). It just took a little getting used to and was much clearer in the pdf version.

Interface rating: 5

The text is easy to navigate. The download is friendlier in communicating organization.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Little or no grammatical errors (at least not any that interrupted meaning).

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

The text doesn’t actively encourage critical thinking of social issues, conflicts, and debates as fully as it could. (or transparently?) The questions at the end of each section are very good. But the divisions along gender and race lines in the United States and the paradigmatic differences in Europe could be more explicitly or simply explained. It’s all there, of course, but this could be one place the contemporary relevance of classical theory could be easily offered.

Comments

Although I used this text in fall 2020, I am newly appreciative of the author’s work in presenting these theorists. I will consider adopting it again for my next round of Classical Theory.
The author provides contemporary updates in their translation; however, the theories as presented are nevertheless complex and would be difficult for even upper level students without considerable instructor intervention (which is fine). Explicit paradigmatic abstraction might help students organize these thinkers in their memories. (also—recommended further readings are great, but not accessible to most undergraduate students)
I recommend more discussion of what theory is. Instead of identifying the pragmatic nature of early American sociology as somehow less theoretical, a conversation about the complex relationship between theory and methods (and praxis) challenges the dominance of deductive reasoning and includes the grounded theory of Addams and others.
All my comments are offered as relative to other texts I've used or considered using. Subjective, to be sure.

Reviewed by Steven Foy, Associate Professor, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on 5/16/24

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

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.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

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.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

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.

Clarity rating: 5

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.

Consistency rating: 4

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.

Modularity rating: 5

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.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

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.

Interface rating: 5

The interface is accessible and reasonable. I didn’t have any problems with navigation or issues with display features. Everything looks clear and presentable.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

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.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

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.

Comments

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.

Reviewed by Caitlin Trombley, Assistant Professor, Marshall University on 5/2/24

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

The book predominantly focuses on Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. For a long time, those have been "the big three" when teaching sociology. However, attempts at trying to decolonize sociology, more emphasis is needed on other incredibly important and foundational contributors to sociology. The section on "early american sociology" does highlight others of central importance, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman and DuBois, I think more work from them would be beneficial.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book does provide excerpts from important works by each theorist, which is excellent for teaching so that everything is in one place, as opposed to having students buy multiple books. The biographical sketches were good.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Since it is a book on classical theory, the content is as up-to-date as can be. However, as mentioned earlier, I think modern attempts to decolonize sociological theory could benefit from adding and centering other founding contributors to sociology, with heavier emphasis on DuBois, Harriet Martineau, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Patricia Lengermann, Simmel, and Mead, to name a few.

Clarity rating: 5

Overall, text is clear. Subtitles could have been more clear, as well as more clearly differentiating between narrative and original text excerpt by author

Consistency rating: 5

Text is consistent with terminology

Modularity rating: 3

The subheadings are useful, though they could be more detailed, or organized in a way that more clearly connects the different ideas. The section on early american sociologists is not organized in the same manner as the other overarching sections. It would have been useful to break it down by the names of the early sociologists like the rest of the text does for Marx, Durkheim, and Weber

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

Overall, topics are organized in a clear fashion. The early sociologists section is not at the beginning of the book, though.

Interface rating: 5

Interface was clear. I used the online navigation and had no issues. PDF is clear as well.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

Did not see any noticeable grammatical errors.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Given the context of the time the theorists were writing, no. Though attempts at decolonizing sociology are relevant when piecing together a classical theory book.

Reviewed by Cara Berg Powers, Instructor, Worcester State University on 6/29/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Primarily focused on Marx, Engels, Durkheim, and Weber, there is also a section on Early American theorists, which does make an attempt to indicate the ways in which the European theorists' work laid the groundwork for the work of US theorists like Jane Addams and WEB Dubois. In each of the theorist sections, there is a comprehensive look at their major perspectives and contributions. It's hard to say if it's a lack of comprehensiveness or if organization would help pull this out more, but I was surprised at the lack of highlighting of Durkheim's contributions about Sociological Imagination.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

The book's straightforward tone and lack of editorializing makes the book's accuracy clear. There is not a strong bias, with the exception of the framing.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Because of the historical nature of the book, it's context is contemporary, but the information is resilient to obsolescence.

Clarity rating: 3

The writing of the book is clear, however the organization of chapters and headings could be more intuitive.

Consistency rating: 4

There is consistency in the terminology and framework, though again, the organization is a bit confusing at times.

Modularity rating: 4

The section breaks with questions are very helpful, but the lack of consistency across the sections in how they are broken down into smaller section does make the overall modularity a little bit of a challenge.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

This part was the most challenging. I wish there was more consistency with the different sections having an internal flow.

Interface rating: 5

Very easy to navigate the online version of the book.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

No distracting errors

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

Because of the specific cultural context of the theorists in question, there are no obvious issues.